Sitting of 26 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Nuclear Levy
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the earliest year in which the nuclear levy could be abolished; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I announced on 12 February that the initial non-fossil fuel obligation would be set for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. The fossil fuel levy will be required for at least the same period, although I expect the rate to decline significantly over that time.
    Mr. Barnes: How does the Secretary of State hope to reduce the subsidy, let alone abolish it? How will greater efficiency be introduced into the nuclear energy industry,
    2
    which is secretive, bureaucratic, technically complex and highly dangerous? Will it be done by reducing safety standards?
    Mr. Wakeham: First, it will not be achieved by a reduction in safety standards. Secondly, whatever may have been the practice in the past, the arrangements that we are bringing into force will be much more open, allowing for greater public scrutiny. Nuclear electricity is vital to ensure security of supply. As nuclear power still costs more than fossil power, the levy is needed so that the extra costs can be identified and fairly shared out.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that critics of the nuclear levy should bear it in mind that in the past, perhaps for very good reasons, coal has been subsidised? If subsidies were beneficial to that industry, is not a subsidy for the nuclear industry appropriate now?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. The nuclear industry is required, properly, to pay the costs of disposing of its own waste, so it is not quite on a level playing field with other energy producers. It is important to make a proper comparison.
    Mr. Dobson: How does it benefit electricity consumers for the right hon. Gentleman to insist that nuclear power stations —the most expensive in the system —must run continually?
    Mr. Wakeham: Anyone who knows about the electricity industry, as the hon. Gentleman does, will appreciate that nuclear power stations, being base load capacity, are more economic if run full time. The major part of the cost of a nuclear reactor is its capital cost rather than its running costs.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he included the nuclear levy in the price increases that he announced recently? With distribution and transmission costs varying across the country, will boards need to impose a range of electricity price increases in the future?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I can confirm that, as I announced recently in the House the average price increases for all customers will be below the rate of inflation and will

    3
    include customers' contributions to the nuclear levy. My hon. Friend is right that there will be a variation in the prices levied by area boards, but that is a matter for them. Prices will vary from area to area, as they have in the past. Some boards have greater costs because their customers are few and far between and a large cable network is expensive. Other boards have a traditionally low rate of return and have further to catch up.
    As I said, the precise figure to be charged is a matter for each board, but domestic electricity price increases, which I believe particularly interest my hon. Friend, will range from 8 to 9 per cent. with perhaps two or three boards increasing their charges by a higher percentage. However, I expect that, overall, increases will range from 3 to 8 per cent., with the average being less than 6 per cent.
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the fossil fuel or nuclear levy in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.
    Mr. Wakeham: The rate of the levy will depend on the terms of the nuclear contracts. Those will ensure that the nuclear levy follows a declining profile. I therefore expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years.
    Mr. Barron: In relation to contracts, is it true that the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric have been advised not to start trading as a plc until they have some guarantee from the Treasury about the costs of reprocessing and decommissioning?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is not a correct statement of affairs. Any director of any company has to satisfy himself that the company conforms with all the requirements of the Companies Acts before it starts trading, and the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric are no exception. They will want to see that Nuclear Electric is set up on a proper basis, as I do. All will be revealed in due course.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in calculating those levies we must compare the cost of generation by nuclear power with the cost of coal or other fossil fuels? Nuclear power generation involves long-term costs, but we shall know the cost of coal generation only at the end of the three-year contracts with British Coal. When my right hon. Friend makes that comparison, will he take into account the cost of flue gas desulphurisation, during the next three years at least, and the possible cost of cheap coal from overseas, which is low in sulphur?
    Mr. Wakeham: The question of which fuel the generators use to generate electricity and, in practice, which mix of fuels will be a matter for them at the end of the period. Obviously, there will be competition between British coal, gas and oil and imported coal. The Government are committed to the implementation of the European directive on desulphurisation, and they will ensure that the fossil fuel generators, when they are floated, will be able to meet their obligations under the directive.

    Mersey Barrage
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a decision on whether the Mersey barrage will be constructed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Mersey Barrage Company's application for the non-fossil fuel obligation is under consideration by my Department.
    Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for his personal commitment to the project. Does he intend to include the barrage scheme in the non-fossil fuel obligation? When is a decision likely to be reached? Will he confirm that of all the candidates for barrage schemes, his Department's findings show that the best location would be the River Mersey?
    Mr. Morrison: To answer the hon. Gentleman's first point, he and the whole House will be pleased to hear that, under the non-fossil fuel obligation, about 300 applications have been handed by the distribution companies to my Department. A considerable amount of work remains to be done to discover which fit the criteria. The hon. Gentleman knows, because he came to see me in the Department, that I should like progress to be made on the Mersey barrage scheme. As for the difficulties of the scheme——
    Mr. Skinner: Mañana man.
    Mr. Morrison: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is interested in the Mersey barrage. The difficulties are commercial and environmental, and they will have to be considered carefully.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that £1 million worth of clear, renewable electricity could be generated each week by the scheme? Would not it be a most valuable and important precursor to a Severn barrage?
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot confirm the precise amount to my hon. Friend, but it is certainly considerable. I am sure that, if it went ahead, the Mersey barrage would be a precursor to the Severn barrage.

    Oil Platform Fabrication
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the potential for expanding the size of the United Kingdom fabrication capacity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Consideration of the potential for expansion of capacity in the fabrication industry is a matter for the private sector, and will depend on the commercial judgment of individual yard owners.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that opaque answer. There has been some discussion, at least in Scotland —as the Minister will know—about the number of fabrication yards and whether there is any possibility of expanding them. I am thinking in particular of the former Kishorn site in Wester Ross which went into receivership; there has been talk about its future.
    Will the Minister bear it in mind that the private sector is, rightly, still concerned about the European Community draft directive on procurement, and about the knock-on effect that it could have on the oil-related sector in Scotland? Can he give us any idea of the Department's thinking on either subject?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it was only two years ago that he and other hon. Members who represent yards in the north and north-east of

    5
    Scotland were coming to me and asking —understandably —where the work would come from. Now we are in a different position, with different challenges. It may be opaque to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the market place that decides.
    As for the directive, as I have said several times it is important that we continue to play on a level field, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage energy conservation in the home.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My Energy Efficiency Office continues to promote energy efficiency in the home through a number of programmes.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Many of my constituents, especially the residents of Hinckley, will welcome the new scheme for insulation in low-income homes. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to support the proposals when they come before the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill, and has he any proposals for advertising to encourage people to be more energy conservation-minded in the home?
    Mr. Morrison: Clause 10 of the Social Security Bill, which is being piloted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is part of the grand design of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall give it every support that I can. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) knows, last week I issued a consultation paper; we are waiting to hear any ideas that he and no doubt many others may have.
    We have a small advertising campaign —aimed principally at industry and commerce—during the next few weeks, with the aim of targeting the people to whom my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Dalyell: As vice-chairman of the Conservative party, does the Minister believe that his Energy Efficiency Office is any more efficient than the Prime Minister's Office, whose costs have risen by 20·6 per cent?——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is well wide of the question. If the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper, I am sure that he will receive an answer.
    Mr. Gow: Would not the Government set a much better example to those who should be saving energy in their homes if they were better at saving electricity costs by economising on lighting and heating? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all over the country in public sector buildings lights are on at noon on bright days and that they are also far too hot? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I chair a committee, at which a Minister from each Department is represented, whose aim is to achieve precisely those objectives. If he visited my Department, my hon. Friend would see energy-efficient lamp bulbs that use only one fifth of the electricity normally used by lights. I am sure that he would like other Departments to be shown that example.
    Mr. Skinner: As Chairman of the energy conservation committee which oversees all those Departments, will the Minister take a look at the figures relating to central heating in the Houses of Parliament? Every year that I have been a Member of Parliament, the organisations concerned have spent a small fortune every recess trying to get it right, and they have not succeeded yet. I should like to know how much the bills amount to: my guess is that the figure is well over £20 million.
    When he has done that, will the Minister go to No. 10 Downing street and, in his capacity as chairman of that committee, find out why the Prime Minister has spent 20·6 per cent. extra on central heating? Is it because of Bernard Ingham and all the others who are stuck up in the attic?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most prominent Members of the House will no doubt realise better than I that the House of Commons (Services) Committee will look into that matter. It is not a matter for a Government Department. Perhaps an approach by the hon. Gentleman and myself to the Committee —although an unholy alliance —might work. I shall consider every aspect of the cost of energy as far as it is within the province of this Department of state.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that according to well-informed opinion, PowerGen, National Power and the other generating companies could spend their money better if they subsidised home insulation instead of building more power stations?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will realise that the electricity and gas industries are required, after privatisation, to provide energy efficiency advice. They were not required to give that advice when they were nationalised.

    Electricity Boards
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the area electricity boards; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet area board chairmen regularly to discuss various matters.
    Mr. McKay: When the Secretary of State next meets the area board chairmen will he ask them whether they agree with John Bailey of National Power that domestic consumers should get through 1990–91 without an increase in domestic electricity rates? Or is it the case, in a newly privatised industry, of "Excused boots" during the fight against inflation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not know the Mr. Bailey to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
    I have already stated my views about prices. I believe that domestic and commercial consumers will get a good deal out of privatisation. It will compare well with the price rises that were imposed under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
    Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the electricity boards, will he impress on them that the greatest wish in the nation is for security of supply to keep the lights burning at home and the factories working? Will he also impress upon them that we must go

    7
    for all options, whether they be coal, oil, gas or nuclear? All those options must be open to us if we are to keep the lights burning and the factories working.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Under the terms of the privatised electricity industry, there will be a legal obligation on area boards to offer terms to any customer. Under their licence conditions, they must have the capacity to meet any likely requirement. There will be substantial penalties if they do not meet those requirements.
    Mr. Hardy: I share the concern that people should be reasonably warm and that the wheels of industry should turn, but does the Secretary of State accept that the price of electricity should command more attention and priority than it seems to? In addition, when he meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he advise them that although the licence under which they will operate after privatisation may allow them to run funeral parlours and second-hand car showrooms, and other activities in the service sector which may be even less attractive, their overwhelming concern must be the maintenance of an electricity supply?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that the area chairmen require no lectures from me, or even from the hon. Gentleman, about their responsibilities. The area boards will be public limited companies of substantial local significance. They will be big employers in their areas and will have big responsibilities. In my opinion, they will be very well run and will be very good members of the community that they serve.
    Mr. Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairmen of the boards, will he outline to them some of the plans for allowing employees in the industry to buy shares after privatisation, particularly in the north-west of England? When the water industry was privatised, over 90 per cent. of the employees took shares in it. My right hon. Friend can expect a willing and eager response from the people who live in my constituency. They want to involve themselves in this newly privatised industry.
    Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. We very much hope that a large number of the employees in the privatised companies will take advantage of the opportunity to have shares in their companies. The necessary arrangements will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Morgan: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he ask them whether they agree with John Baker, the chief executive-designate of National Power, that, in economic terms, there is no need for an increase in domestic electricity prices from 1 April? For the third year running, the Government are imposing an increase in domestic electricity prices at least twice what was requested by the industry. Are the Government jacking up electricity prices as a form of taxation, to use the price of fuel to encourage conservation —one might call it an insulated roof tax —or do they simply wish to increase the rate of return, which is not high enough for the Government's friends in the City?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The price of electricity must be determined at a price which is accepted and enables the industry to earn a reasonable rate of return.
    Mr. Barron: Answer the question.
    Mr. Wakeham: I will answer the hon. Gentleman. The rate of return that a privatised industry will earn will be slightly less than the 5 per cent. return on assets that would have been required under Labour party policy had the industry remained in the state sector. The deduction that any reasonable person could make is that the price of privatised electricity will be lower than it would have been under a Labour Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of privatised power shows that investment is greater and prices are lower than they would have been had the industry stayed in the public sector?
    Mr. Wakeham: The record is there for all to see. The electricity industry will be run more efficiently and I hope that investment will be better directed than it sometimes has been in the past.

    National Grid
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Grid Company; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend and I meet and will continue to meet the chairman-designate of the National Grid Company from time to time to discuss a range of matters relevant to the company and the electricity industry as a whole.
    Mr. McFall: Does not the incident at Hinkley B power station two weeks ago demonstrate that nuclear power stations are more vulnerable than conventional power stations because when storms affect the nearby grid lines, the entire station has to be tripped out? In the light of that, how can the Minister keep asserting that nuclear power stations guarantee security of supply?
    Mr. Baldry: Nothing happened at Hinkley B which was in any way untoward, and it is highly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Nuclear electricity makes a significant contribution to diversity of power supplies in Britain and will continue to do so.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister look into a matter that causes me some anxiety —the transmission of electricity across the country by high transmission lines on pylons which create an electric charge? Current research in the United States shows that when they go past housing estates they could be a hazard to people who live beneath them. I should like to think that there is no hazard, but I should be grateful if the Department would look into the matter.
    Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend will write to me on that I shall make sure that his anxieties are thoroughly investigated.
    Mr. Doran: The Minister will be aware of the increasing concern at the number of gas burn generating schemes that have recently been announced. Will he raise the matter when he next meets the chairman, and in particular will he let us know whether the Government welcome the explosion in gas burn schemes? Is it part of a planned policy and has consideration been given to the effect that it is likely to have on other forms of electricity generation?
    Mr. Baldry: It is and always has been the policy of this Government —and, I think, of the Labour party when it was in government —that there should be diversity of electricity generation based on coal, gas and nuclear sources. I find it a little difficult to reconcile the hon. Gentleman's question with my meetings with the chairman of National Grid.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of improvement in energy efficiency since 1979 (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European countries.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Energy consumption in the United Kingdom is virtually unchanged since 1979, although our gross domestic product has risen by 20 per cent. The average reduction in the United Kingdom's energy intensity between 1979 and 1987 was 2·5 per cent., comparing favourably with the European average of 1·6 per cent.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging figures, but does he accept that continuing improvements in energy efficiency are the best means, if not the only means, of reconciling the needs of economic growth and of the maintenance and protection of our environment? Will he assure the House that, if possible, our relative improvement compared with other countries will be sustained in future years?
    Mr. Morrison: The simple answer is yes and yes. We believe that energy efficiency remains important, and we shall do all that we can to strive to ensure that we out-perform other countries.
    Ms. Armstrong: In the light of that reply, will the Minister reconsider the regulations, under which assistance for district heating schemes can be obtained only by users of more than 25,000 therms of gas per year? Derwentside district council has made representations to the Minister on that because, having managed through energy conservation to reduce its consumption to less than 22,000 therms a year, it is losing grant aid and support for its schemes. Is that not a scandal, and does it not go against everything that the Government preach?
    Mr. Morrison: No, it is not a scandal. I am prepared to look at any scheme according to the rules laid down, but it certainly is not a scandal and it does not go against the need to continue our efforts to achieve energy efficiency, as demonstrated by the 300 applications under the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest spurs to energy efficiency is an increase in the cost of energy? Does he agree that it is not entirely realistic to compare our energy efficiency record with that of our continental neighbours without also comparing the average cost of electricity? Does he further agree that the greatest barrier to energy efficiency is the low cost of electricity in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that international comparisons must take many factors into account, but neither he nor I would be popular with hon. Members if we advocated a policy of high energy costs.

    Pipelines
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of oil and gas pipelines constructed in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: In the years 1985 to 1989, the numbers of oil pipelines authorised for construction on the United Kingdom continental shelf were 28, 16, 10, 37 and 30. The corresponding figures for gas pipelines were 29, 18, 15, 24 and 30.
    Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the Minister shares our concern for the future of British Steel. What action is he taking to promote its involvement in the construction of those pipelines and to increase the British contribution to them?
    Mr. Morrison: I want British Steel to be as successful as the hon. Gentleman does. A significant number of pipelines have been approved in the past five years. Subject to being able to predict the future, we expect as many approvals in the next five years. That offers a significant market opportunity for British Steel which I hope that it will take.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what reports from PowerGen he has received about energy-saving proposals.
    Mr. Baldry: I have received no specific reports from PowerGen about energy-saving proposals, but I am aware of its interest in the subject.
    Mr. Jack: I am disappointed. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not seen recent press reports on PowerGen's suggested initiative to save energy by insulating existing properties and factories rather than building new power stations. Perhaps he will evaluate that proposition, make public his findings and also publicise the benefits of insulating existing housing rather than concentrating simply on new build.
    Mr. Baldry: If PowerGen is considering energy-saving proposals, that is entirely a matter for the company to decide. I applaud the company's business acumen in investigating the potential of energy efficiency. Everyone must have an interest in using energy as efficiently as possible.

    Landfill Gas Schemes
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.
    Sir George Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department took the lead in exploring the potential of landfill gas and has spent some £2 million on research, development and demonstration projects to encourage its exploitation as a fuel.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pouring rubbish into large excavations in the fields owned

    11
    by the London Brick Company and in other parts of the country will result in a great advantage to the environment? Is he aware that, although this source will contribute greatly to electricity production, a hazard exists and if houses are built on the sites, strict regulations, which I believe already exist, must be observed to ensure that they are protected?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend about the significant advantages to be gained from landfill gas. I am delighted that about 50 of the 300 non-fossil fuel obligation applications relate to landfill gas. I agree that the correct regulations must be taken into account both when the gas is used and afterwards.
    Sir George Young: Although, on the face of it, this seems an unlikely energy source, is it used overseas for useful purposes?
    Mr. Morrison: In short, yes. I will provide my hon. Friend with the detail if he wishes.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that the putrefaction processes involved in the generation of gas in landfill sites lead to considerable contamination of groundwater in many sites? In conjunction with the projects that his Department runs, will he ask the Department of the Environment to consider the impact of landfill sites on the general environment?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the environmental aspects of landfill gas. That is why it is important to carry out a great deal of research and development. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would welcome the initiatives that have been taken, not least because such projects involve recycling and contribute greatly to tackling the greenhouse effect.

    Union of Democratic Mineworkers
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had with the officers of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and we discussed a number of issues affecting the coal industry.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at that meeting, the leaders of the UDM and the right hon. Gentleman discussed the possibility that if the Tories were re-elected they would introduce privatisation arrangements for British Coal and money would be laundered to the UDM not only to set up companies in advance to buy into British Coal but to use taxpayers' money in the form of actual cash or of departmental expertise? Given the press comments to that effect, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House that no taxpayers' money has been handed over in any form to the UDM and will not be handed over in the event of privatisation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I know of no taxpayers' money that has been handed over to the UDM. The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that he knows what went on at my meeting with the president of the UDM. It was a very interesting meeting and I told him about the Government's position on coal privatisation. For the hon. Gentleman's
    12
    benefit, I will repeat what I said. I said that the Government were committed to privatising the coal industry in the next Parliament but had not determined the best way for that to be done. I said that I would welcome the president's suggestions of what he thought would be the best way for it to be done and I await his suggestions in due course.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, did he discuss the fact that as British Coal is the largest power supply user in the country —the environmentally friendly mini-power station at Bilsthorpe —will be subject to the nuclear levy?
    Mr. Wakeham: Negotiations about that power station are still in progress. The levy is paid by consumers of electricity and not by power stations and is based on an order that has been presented to the House.
    Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman met officials of the UDM, was he candid and frank with them? Did he tell them that if the Government continue to pursue their policies there will be a correspondingly large contraction of coal mining in the Nottinghamshire area as he has already intimated that the Government propose to give the go-ahead to the import of low-sulphur coal and as desulphurisation has a lower priority on his Department's agenda?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that matter was raised when I spoke to the president of the UDM. Had it been raised, I should have confirmed that the Government are fully committed to the European directive, so there has been no change in that policy. I should also have mentioned that, in accordance with the policies of our predecessors, the Government do not seek to restrict the importation of coal.
    I said to the president that the future place of British Coal in our economy depends on its ability to be the supplier of choice for the generating industry. I believe that an efficient British Coal will still maintain a substantial share of the generating industry's fuel requirements, and I hope that the industry will respond to the challenge before it.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the community charge on the revenues from his properties in Lancashire.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The community charge will have no effect upon revenue from Duchy property in Lancashire.
    Mr. Jack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Duchy residents are suffering the worst case of pillage since the Viking era in the unnecessarily high community charge that they will have to bear as a result of overspending by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council? Does my right hon. Friend agree that their position could be helped if the county council adopted the Conservative

    13
    group's suggestion of a charge £60 less than that proposed by Labour? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Conservative group on its initiative?
    Mr. Baker: I was in Lancashire on Friday and I met many people who were angry with Lancashire county council, whose expenditure has risen by 17½ per cent. —a massive £123 million —with the result that the community charge figure will be very high. If the rating system had continued, the rates in Lancashire would have risen by 32 per cent. this year. I warmly congratulate the Conservative group on Lancashire county council on advancing proposals setting out in detail how they would reduce the community charge by £60 per person in a full year.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is not the fixing of budgets for the education of our children, the care of elderly people, the provision of social services and the meeting of housing needs far too important a matter to be affected by arm-twisting, bullying and intimidation from the chairman of the Conservative party? Whatever happened to the concept of the poll tax bringing more accountability to local government? That idea seem to have gone out of the window now that Ministers and the chairman of the Tory party have been ringing up leaders of authorities to threaten them. Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seen the denunciation by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy of the fictitious figures used by the Prime Minister in the House last week to manipulate public opinion? As he is talking about the effect of high poll tax figures, why does he not deal with the situation in his own county of Surrey?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Lancashire.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman compare Lancashire with Surrey? Working is 56 per cent. above the Government figure, Fareham 49 per cent., Eastleigh in Hampshire 48 per cent. and Dover in Kent 48 per cent. What is he telling his Tory constituents in Mole Valley?
    Mr. Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the difference between a Conservative-controlled authority and a Labour-controlled authority and I have not been ringing up the obvious Conservative councils. A Conservative authority looks for value for money and tries to find ways to reduce the community charge whereas a Labour authority looks for ways to increase expenditure. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to raise these questions. He is the author —the sole author, as I understand it —of the roof tax and local income tax. My constituents in Mole Valley want to know what they would pay under the Cunningham roof tax and local income tax. The hon. Gentleman announced his proposals with a great flourish of trumpets last year, but the shadow Cabinet panicked when it saw them and he was told to say nothing more about them. The Labour party will have to come clean by 3 May about its alternative to the community charge. It would be fundamentally dishonest for the Labour party to campaign without a specific alternative as electors would not know how they would be affected. If by 3 May the electors do not know how they will be affected, the Labour party will have been cynical, dishonest and hypocritical.

    York
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy's properties in York.
    Mr. Baker: I plan to visit York on 1 May, although not in my capacity as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Gregory: In anticipation of my right hon. Friend's next visit to York, will he note the buoyant state of the economy there and that it is enjoying an unprecedented decline in unemployment in line with the national trend? Will he confirm that that is in stark contrast with the years when York, like the rest of the nation, was unfortunately under a Socialist administration?
    Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the past year unemployment in Yorkshire has fallen by a fifth and in the past three years it has fallen by half. That will be welcomed by both sides of the House. I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI who in November 1989 said:
    "Business in the region is in much better shape to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond than anyone would have dared forecast at the beginning of this decade."
    That is a tribute to the buoyancy of the economy in Yorkshire and to the policies that we have followed in the past 11 years.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Employees (Insurance Contributions)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on his recent correspondence with the hon. Member for Bolsover on insurance contributions paid by employees.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): This is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission strictly. I can confirm what I told the hon. Gentleman in correspondence. The Comptroller and Auditor General has significant doubts about the effectiveness of controls exercised by the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue acting on its behalf to ensure that employers have properly calculated and paid all contributions due to the national insurance fund. As a result, he has qualified his certificate for the 1988–89 national insurance fund account which is due to be published early in March. He has also told me that he intends to carry out a major study of this area, which would examine whether the Department's mechanisms for ensuring that contributions have been received from the maximum number of eligible persons operate in an economic and effective way.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Comptroller and Auditor General that we are pleased that the investigation is going ahead? Will he also tell him to be aware that some companies say that they employ only a small number of people when in fact they have a larger number on the books?
    Will the hon. Gentleman also ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the multinational companies which pay extravagant salaries abroad but according to their returns to the Inland Revenue supposedly pay only

    15
    Mickey Mouse wages here? Will he tell his right hon. Friends that introducing legislation and changing the rules so often provides many loopholes? Is it not time that there were more inspectors dealing with that issue rather than hounding one-parent families?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General is examining the system of controls at the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. There is no evidence from his investigations to show that there is widespread abuse. If any such evidence comes to light, the Comptroller and Auditor General will report it to the House and I have no doubt that it will be examined by the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that 99·9 per cent. of British companies collect national insurance contributions and pay them to the Treasury in the proper way? Does he further agree that unscrupulous companies should be rooted out, booted out and taken to court?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know what the proportion is, but I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

    Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: As I informed the House in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 January, the Commission last met on 12 December 1989. Among the subjects discussed at that meeting were the estimates for the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1990–91, and the corporate plan for the National Audit Office to 1994–95.
    Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one reason why the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to discover and investigate scandals such as the national insurance scandal is that he has, and must maintain, adequate levels of staff? Will he make every effort to ensure that the wage levels paid in the National Audit Office are at least comparable with, if not better than, those paid in the private sector so that the multi-million and possibly billion-pound scandals that have come to light will continue to be revealed to the House?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Recruitment to the National Audit Office is proceeding well and the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite satisfied with that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the Commission last met it had before it the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? That report highlights the fact that the Refreshment Department has almost £2 million in reserve, yet it pays some of the lowest wages in the country to those employed in the Dining Rooms of the House. Is that not a matter——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that that is a matter for the Public Accounts Commission.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a Commission report. Why cannot I ask my question without interruption?
    Mr. Speaker: These questions relate to the Public Accounts Commission, not the House of Commons Commission.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a Commission report.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I read the National Audit Office annual report with great care, but I can remember nothing about the kitchen committee's report in it. No doubt it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will wish to raise with his right hon. Friends.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    EC Directives
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council over the last 12 months how many European Economic Commission directives emanating form the Commission were considered by the House before and after 10 o'clock; and how many were not considered by the House at all.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): All the legislative proposals issued by the European Commission are considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which decides whether to recommend them for debate. Including non-legislative documents, 751 EEC documents were deposited in Parliament in 1989. A total of 96 documents were debated—32 before 10 pm, 40 after 10 pm, and 24 in Standing Committee.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a major democratic problem when floods of legislation affecting all our constituencies pour out of Brussels but in many cases are not fully discussed by the House of Commons? Should not further action be taken to ensure that legislation affecting our constituents is properly discussed in the House before decisions are made in Brussels? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the worst solution of all would be to refer that flood of legislation to tame Committees?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend must understand that delegated legislation, national or international, has long been a feature of parliamentary government, particularly unitary parliamentary government such as our own.
    On Community legislation, the number of documents coming forward for approval or consideration by the House has not varied significantly in the past 10 years. The proportion debated depends upon the proportion recommended for further consideration by the Scrutiny Committee. That proportion has varied between 10 and 15 per cent., and the figure last year was in no way exceptional. I believe that all those recommended for consideration were debated.
    The Procedure Committee report that we are studying makes it clear that debates on such matters are normally held in time. We shall, of course, give further consideration to its recommendations.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that the significance of many of the documents, particularly many of the 90 that we discussed last year, is becoming much greater? Does he therefore agree in principle with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that it

    17
    would he better for the Select Committee on European Legislation to be able to put those important documents in a wider context? Does he agree with analogy that the EC Scrutiny Committee already has binoculars at its eyes but is asking the House to give it radar?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course the Government attach importance to continuing proper scrutiny of legislation of this kind. That is why we are studying closely the recommendations of the Procedure Committee report, which found that the scrutiny machinery of this Parliament was at least as effective as that of any other member state. It is right that we should give detailed consideration to the Committee's report with a view to early implementation of any changes that the House agrees are necessary.
    Mr. Rowe: As we get closer to the EC, which is entirely desirable in most respects, would not it ensure that a higher political priority were given to such important scrutiny if the power to initiate legislation came from Ministers rather than from the European Commission? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would he a much better way to run the EC?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the process whereby legislation takes shape depends on the relationship between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The Commission often takes on board proposals from various member states or Ministers. Those proposals, wherever they originate, are carefully considered by the Council before being subjected to consideration by the European Parliament as well as by national Parliaments.

    Eastern European Parliamentarians
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to meet Members of Parliaments of Warsaw pact countries to discuss parliamentary and democratic procedures.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a huge increase in contacts with parliamentarians and others in eastern Europe following the dramatic and most welcome developments there in the past few months. Naturally I have played a full part in that and I look forward to maintaining such contacts.
    Mr. Winnick: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to those parliamentarians that while their countries are, we hope, beginning to establish the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, in Britain the Tory Government have taken away the right of many people working in local government to stand for election in another local authority, to stand for election to Parliament or to take part in any political activity? How can he justify his action of six years ago, when he took away the right of people to belong to a trade union if they happened to be working at GCHQ? Is it not odd that while east European countries are heading towards democracy, our democratic process is being undermined?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The oddity is entirely in the hon. Gentleman's perception. The decisions taken by the Government in relation to trade union membership at GCHQ have been tested and upheld in many places. The
    18
    decisions taken about the relationship between local government membership and party-political representation were strongly debated in this House and further debated in the other place. The conclusion that emerged was the result of proper consideration in both Houses of a democratic Parliament.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that people emerging from a Socialist paradise in the East are unlikely to want lessons on parliamentary democracy from Socialists in the West?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have noticed that they tend to look toward the Government for instruction in these matters.
    Mr. Alton: Following the announcement last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs that funding would be available to political parties in this House which they would be able to make available to parties in eastern Europe, can the Leader of the House say how much money will be available? Bearing in mind that elections are already under way in eastern Europe, will he give us the timetable? Are the organisations that the Government have in mind similar to foundations such as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the FriedrichNaumann-Stiftung in West Germany?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will realise that such help is being given in a number of different ways, ranging from the Inter-Parliamentary Union to the Great Britain/East Europe centre; a know-how fund for Poland and other countries is also available. I will put the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a good idea for people from eastern Europe to explain both to Socialists in this House and to the British public why they are getting rid of nationalisation, high taxation and a bureaucratic state and looking towards the British Government's privatisation policies as the way forward for a free society?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that Conservative Members are certainly of one mind with my hon. Friend. The process of privatisation has been undertaken not just in eastern Europe but in countries around the world, following the example set by the Government of this country.
    Dr. Cunningham: Welcome though the contacts with developing democracies in eastern Europe will be, will the Leader of the House say whether his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have advised the new democratic Governments to introduce more than 50 Acts of Parliament taking away powers from the local level and giving them to Ministers? Have they been advised to abolish the existing councils for their capital cities? How many requests has the Leader of the House had from eastern European Governments about the advantages of introducing a poll tax in their countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: One cannot but admire the one-track nature of the hon. Gentleman's mind. Certainly, one of the proposals that we commend to democratic countries in eastern Europe is for a sensible pattern of local government taxation such as exists in this country.

    Car Park (Car Washing)
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the washing of hon. and right hon. Members' cars in the Members' car park.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Following representations by the staff side of the House of Commons Whitley committee, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has confirmed that attendants in the underground car park may, by private arrangement, wash Members' cars out of duty hours.
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the valuable freedom of hon. Members to have their cars washed at their own expense in the Members' car park has recently been substantially curtailed? Knowing how extremely valuable and highly regarded that facility is, will he look into the matter again to see whether it is possible to make it easier rather than more difficult for Membersto have their cars washed?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the matter was considered, no doubt with the detailed attention that it deserves, by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee on 19 February. Its conclusion was arrived at on the basis that the service to which my hon. Friend refers is a voluntary service undertaken by private arrangement out of duty hours. It has been agreed by the authorities on that basis and will continue as such.

    Catering
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward propals to amalgamate the catering departments of the Houses of Lords and Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no such plans.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there could be savings in amalgamating the Refreshment Departments of the House of Lords and the House of Commons and that it would he beneficial as well as convivial for Members of both Houses to meet over meals? Does he agree that Members of this House would enjoy going to sit on the long benches in the House of Lords Dining Room, as much as the Lords would enjoy coming to the House of Commons Cafeteria?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not so familiar as my hon. Friend obviously is with the wide range of facilities available in the other place.
    Mr. Dickens: My right hon. and learned Friend will be.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a pleasure to which many hon. Members from both sides of the House can look forward in the distant future. There are no doubt sensible reasons for considering a higher degree of co-operation between the catering Departments at both ends of the Palace of Westminster. However, historical and constitutional separations make that process of co-operation more than usually difficult.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any notification from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers that they want to make a statement on the outcome of the election in Nicaragua, which has seen the destruction of another Socialist icon and the rejection, once and for all, of the concept that the Sandinistas are a popular regime rather than one that was imposed on the people?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed the arrival at 3.30 pm of the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip on the Front Bench. Could this have been a matter of their concern to support question 78, which is on providing accommodation for the archives of Government Chief Whips? Would they like recorded —if they are not too profane—their expletives when they have to persuade their colleagues to accept the community charge——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was an interesting question, but we did not reach it.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the exchanges during questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I seek your guidance on the length of time for questions. I tried to temper my comments on the community charge in Lancashire so as to give adequate time for a response. I could have gone on at some length about reductions in the charge that could have resulted if Lancashire had not topped up its balances—£160 off the community charge——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had a jolly good run on that; I do not think that he can have another bite at it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a report about the incident on Friday when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) moved the Second Reading of his Bill on access to medical records. At 2.28 pm the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) rose to say that he supported the Bill, and proceeded to talk it out. We asked for a report from the Deputy Speaker to be passed on to you, because we have reason to believe that the hon. Member for Esher has been linked with certain medical firms——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I read about that in Hansard. I was not asked for a report. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman is making that allegation, he must make it, not to me, but to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), Mr. Speaker.
It is important that Ministers be aware of the concern among Conservative Members that there should be a statement on Nicaragua, especially as we want to know what the view of the Opposition will be —particularly that
22
of the hon. Member for Newham, North East (Mr. Banks), who has just lost the use of the aeroplane that he has enjoyed in the past few years.
Mr. Speaker: Come on.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker.
Was Mr. Deputy Speaker aware at the time of the debate on Friday that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) was a director of a company called Angel Care UK Limited——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make allegations of that sort, he knows exactly what to do: he must make them, not here, but to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which is directly responsible for such matters.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that Back-Bench Members look on Question Time, and particularly on supplementary questions, as an opportunity to obtain answers to their questions. You will have noticed that during Question Time today Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen —especially the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked two questions —took up an inordinate amount of time asking questions, thereby preventing Back-Bench Members from getting in. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is it not about time these people were advised that Back-Bench Members want to participate?
Mr. Speaker: Quite right. I am strongly in favour of short supplementary questions, which tend to lead to short supplementary answers. I agree that questions asked today by hon. Members on both sides of the House were rather long.
Dr. John Cunningham rose——
Hon. Members: Oh!
Dr. Cunningham: Given that Conservative Members raised the issue in the first place, it ill becomes them to groan when I decide to respond. In the interests of well-informed debate on all sides, I wanted to ensure that the question of the higher levels of poll tax in Tory shires and Tory councils would be raised.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be developing into an extension of Question Time on the part of those Members who, sadly, could not be called earlier today. I shall take only points of order that I can deal with because we have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your advice because I am somewhat confused about question No. 64. I should like to know whether it was right to phrase it in that way or whether the Table Office should have phrased it differently. It talks about,
"revenues from his properties in Lancashire."
Surely the point is that the Duke of Lancaster is Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, these are Crown properties, and not the properties of any Minister or of any body other than the Crown. On that basis I should like to know precisely how a question in relation to the Duchy of

23
Lancaster should be phrased. The Duchy of Lancaster is an ethereal body that does not exist. The real body is the Crown and Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I think that this is what one might call shorthand for the properties for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responsibility. Perhaps the question should have appeared in that form on the Order Paper.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On occasion you ask hon. Members to confine themselves to a narrow question and to concern themselves solely with Lancashire. If I had been given the freedom that was given to the Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition, I would have been able to tell the House about Cleveland and the high community charge there——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should prefer the hon. Member not to do that now.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of all hon. Members, will you make clear precisely the procedure to be followed about the declaration of interests? Is it satisfactory for hon. Members simply to record them in the Register of Members' Interests and not to make any further reference to any interests when they rise to speak on a matter in which they clearly have an interest or in which it could be believed that they had an interest? Would it not be better if, when hon. Members with an interest rise to speak, they do not just leave the matter at something written in the book but declare the interest orally to the House? That would have got us round the difficulty that we encountered on Friday with the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Very well, I shall hear it and deal with the matter all at once.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham,
24
North-West (Mr. Banks) was about my good self. I make it clear that I was not notified that this matter would be raised today, and that is unfortunate. As I said on Friday, I had no relevant interest to disclose in relation to the speech that I made. Whether Opposition Members approve or disapprove of that speech, I hope that they will take that as the final word.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will leave the matter at that.
Mr. Dickens: I must declare an interest.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may do so in a minute. This is a serious matter. I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order No. 128. The House knows that it is not necessary to declare an interest at Question Time, but that in a debate, if a Member has a direct interest, he would always declare it.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it yet.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to declare an interest which I should declare every day of the week: I hate Socialism.
Mr. Alan Williams: It is a well-established rule of this House that any Member making a speech on a topic in which he has an interest should declare that interest. I am sure it will be agreed that this matter is particularly sensitive when, in the last two minutes of private Members' time on a Friday, the purpose of an intervention may be to block progress——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member, who was here, heard the hon. Gentleman say that he had no such interest—[Interruption.]
Order. We in this Chamber are honourable Members.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr Speaker: The only amendment selected is amendment No. 3.

  Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
    Clause 1

      LICENSED PREMISES: APPLICATION OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954, PART II
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 31, at end insert:
      "3A. Section 38 (Restriction on agreements excluding provisions of Part II) of the 1954 Act shall be read and have effect as if there were added the following subsection—
      '(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section shall not apply where the tenancy to be granted is to be of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, except where the holding of the licence is merely incidental to another purpose.'."
      The purpose of this amendment is to outlaw the practice of contracting-out in the relationship between brewers and their pub tenants. The Bill relates to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which concerns the relationship between a landlord and a tenant in the case of a shop or other commercial premises. The 1954 Act, which was modified by the Law of Property Act 1969, includes a provision that allows landlords and their tenants to agree mutually to contract-out. The terms of the 1954 Act are defensible in the context of the circumstances that existed then. The country was trying to rebuild its economy at a time when many urban areas were shattered in the aftermath of the second world war and at a time when many suburban areas had been broken up and were trying to revitalise themselves, against quite difficult odds. At that time the House felt that it would be constructive to have in the 1954 Act a provision giving some more leeway than might otherwise have existed in relation to contracts between landlords and their tenants. In a sense, it was a question of allowing tenants to try to establish businesses in those difficult circumstances without being hamstrung by regulations and rules that probably were not required.
      Of course, those tenants had many oportunities to locate in other areas nearby. At that time the House felt that where a landlord and his tenant were of the opinion that they could benefit mutually by coming to their own contractual arrangements, rather than by being tied by the strict terms of the Act, it was permissible for them, provided that they applied to the court, to be contracted-out of the specific terms of the Act.
      The big difference between the position then and the present situation is that there is not now the same shortage of business accommodation. In many of the areas, especially urban areas, in which pubs are located there is sometimes a glut of accommodation. That rather tilts the balance of power in favour of the landlord and leaves the tenant exposed to the vagaries of the marketplace. In
      26
      addition, in the case of the brewery, the landlord often is not only the body owning the public house, which is at the retail end, but the organisation that dictates the nature of the product retailed in those premises dictates the conditions under which the product is retailed, and dictates the general environment in which it is retailed. I refer to such things as amusement machines, pin-ball games, and so on, all of which are often controlled by the landlord. So, in the beer industry, the relationship between landlord and tenant is quite different from that which generally pertains between landlord and tenant in the case of an ordinary commercial business.
      I hope that the House acknowledges that distinction, because it was certainly felt in Committee that it exists. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will acknowledge also that it is not a simple relationship between a brewery landlord and a tenant but one that requires special consideration not always consistent with that given to the usual relationship between a landlord and tenant.
      The nature of the relationship is essentially why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission identified that a complex monopoly exists. It is not a monopoly simply between one brewery and a number of retailers, but a complex monopoly among brewers and retailers. The question is whether the Bill provides the necessary and proper balance in the relationship between the brewery and a pub tenant. That is the guts of the Bill. Is the balance right?
      I am sure that the House accepts that the relationship cannot be one way. If it is tilted too far in favour of the landlord, inevitably it will serve as a disincentive for landlords to establish a relationship with potential tenants. If it is tilted too far in favour of the tenant, that will discourage landlords. That argument is accepted by the National Licensed Victuallers Association, and I share its view that it is crucial to strike the right balance.
      If the House does not accept the amendment, the important goal of achieving the right balance will not be met. Brewers are a powerful body of people and a powerful lobby. They will inevitably place undue pressure on tenants to exclude themselves from the terms of the Bill. If it is possible for brewers to reach a bilateral arrangement not covered by statute, and if they feel it is in their interests to seek such an agreement, it is only human nature that they will do so. If the amendment is not accepted, the balance of power will be tilted too far in the brewers' favour, and they will then be able to exercise too much power over prospective tenants.
      If the Bill was not sympathetic to brewers, the Brewers Society, which is a powerful lobby, would have lobbied right hon. and hon. Members every day between the Committee stage and Report to ensure that the brewers' case was heard. I have heard of no lobbying of any significance in the weeks between the Committee stage and now. Compare that silence with the £6 million campaign that the Brewers Society conducted against the MMC's report and recommendations of 1988 and 1989. Although the Bill appears on the face of it to sympathise with the tenant and to be balanced, in fact it is tilted very much in favour of the brewery. The amendment is crucial if we are to give the legislation teeth.
      There is no doubt in my mind that brewers will put the heat on potential tenants.
      Mr. Don Dixon: Is it not a fact that the brewers have already exerted pressure on hon. Members?

      27
      A programme was recently shown on television, either on Channel 2 or 4, in which the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was quoted as saying that pressure had been put on him and his colleagues by the brewers since the Monopoly and Mergers Commission report had been published. If they can put that sort of pressure on independent Members of Parliament, can my hon. Friend imagine the amount of pressure that they can put on tenants who rent houses from the brewers?
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that point. I might have been more grateful if he had not raised it, because he has stolen it from my text. However, this is a real worry, and I recall the submission made by the hon. Member for Beverley, who said that he felt that many Conservative Members had had to face great pressure from the Brewers Society which wanted them to defend its position, to defend the brewers and to examine the legislation with that borne carefully in mind.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has made an important point. If hon. Members find it difficult to face up to the power of the brewers' lobby —and there was ample evidence of that being the case from the reaction of many hon. Members to the original proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission —what chance does the tenant of a pub have against the might of the brewers?
      Later in my contribution I hope to give examples of the changes that are taking place in the industry which may cause undue pressure to be put on tenants. Some of the changes in the industry are taking place for normal economic reasons. As the patterns of urban and rural development change, it is necessary to have new outlets to retail beer. There are always changes in the industry, and there is always a need to change the location of public houses. Some pubs are more viable than others which fall out of favour.
      Some weeks ago I was in an old dockland area in Salford where there no doubt used to be many old broken-down, sawdust-floored pubs which have now gone. The pubs there now are very posh and provide an upmarket service. I am sure that the relationship between tenant and brewer will be different in that area now. The brewer will have a different attitude to the location patterns of pubs and whether directly to manage pubs or to have tenanted houses or free houses. The type of tenant who might be able to face the new challenge in that part of Salford might be quite different from the tenant who originally took the house. So changes are taking place, and I recognise that.
      However, other changes are taking place in the industry which are not due to everyday economic circumstances, but because of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the fact that it pointed out that competition was crucial to the industry and that because of the complex monopoly position that competition was not present—the brewers were making excessive profits and the consumers were paying excessive prices. All sorts of examples have been quoted to show that.
      The Government then introduced regulations that in some cases changed the relationship between the brewer and the tenant of the pub. Some of the regulations were supported by the Opposition when they were debated in the House in December, but we felt that we could not give
      28
      our support to others. The Opposition put forward a number of counter proposals which the Minister, in his wisdom, was not able to accept. In the light of what has happened since December, perhaps the Minister will want to reconsider what has happened in the industry, particularly in relation to one case which I shall cite which illustrates one of the major changes taking place.
      If I were of a mind, and if the House was sufficiently tolerant to allow me to do so, I could speak for a considerable time on the number of changes, but I hope that it will be sufficient for me to highlight four significant changes in the relationship between the landlord and the tenant during the past few months. All these changes, I believe, are a direct result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report and the orders passed in the House in December. They are all relevant to different parts of the market place, and I believe that they all demonstrate the weakness of the tenant's position.
      4 pm
      Courage and Grand Metropolitan are both large concerns, and both traditionally own both brewery and pub interests; some of the pubs have been directly managed, others tenanted. Courage has 5,002 pubs in this country, 3,673 of which are tenanted. The current bilateral relationship between Courage and its tenants has been established over a period, sometimes through negotiation with trade unions or the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
      Those pubs are about to be transferred in a swap arrangement to Grand Metropolitan, which has different contractual arrangements with its tenants. Although there will obviously be some overlap, Grand Metropolitan's general approach to marketing may prove entirely different from the approach adopted by Courage in recent months. The tenants now face the difficult decision whether to accept new contracts. Initially Grand Metropolitan will be bound by the contracts that it has inherited, but as their tenancies come up for renewal tenants will find themselves faced with new terms and conditions that may be entirely different from those of Courage, and will thus be placed in a vulnerable position: Grand Metropolitan may have its eye on another market place. According to evidence accepted on both sides of the House, most tenancies are for three years or less, so the tenants will have to face their new circumstances fairly soon.
      Another example is Scottish and Newcastle, which occupies a different sector of the market. The company was originally one of the big six, but, under the new arrangements following the adoption of the orders in December, any company with fewer than 2,000 pubs became bound by less severe regulations than those with more than 2,000; indeed, in most cases they were bound by no regulations at all. Scottish and Newcastle has 2,287 pubs. Rather than face up to its new responsibilities, the brewery intends to dispose of 250, which means that tenants will either be bound by a new contract with the new owners, or will end up out of work because of the closure of their tenancies.
      The changes will affect not only the major sector of the market —or even the regional sector of which Scottish and Newcastle probably considers itself a part —but the small sector. Fuller, Smith and Turner, a London brewery, has 120 pubs of which 92 are tenanted. It has already told its

      29
      tenants that, because of the change in the regulations, it intends to draw up new contracts, not for some of them—as Scottish and Newcastle has done—but for all of them.
      Mansfield brewery, in a more rural market, has 306 pubs, of which 196 are tenanted. It has said that it will introduce new contracts as the old ones expire, involving different terms and conditions. That, too, is a result of the changes in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
      Dramatic changes are taking place. An editorial in Brewing Review suggested that they are more dramatic than any changes that have taken place in the industry for many years. This is at a time when the regulations and the law governing the relationship between landlord and tenant are changing. It is therefore crucial to get the balance right and ensure that there is equity and power sharing between the landlord and the tenant.
      Amendment No. 3 is the key amendment. It will determine whether the Government have introduced fair and balanced legislation that will improve competition and give everyone a bit of the action. If the amendment falls, brewers will have all the power and will begin to put undue pressure on their tenants, and the Bill will be innocuous and spineless. Competition in the industry will suffer as a result of an already complex monopoly becoming an even more complex monopoly.
      Mr. Dixon: Is not one of the problems that, by July 1992, 10 per cent. of the tenants will fall foul of the measure? We tried to resolve the problem in Committee, but the Government resisted our amendment, which we withdrew after the Minister's reply. It is important to point out that July 1992 is the operative date when brewers will be able to put pressure on tenants.
      Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It suggests that the Government have not been selective in refusing to give way. They have refused to give way on numerous proposals that have been made, in the House and in Committee, both by Opposition Members and by those who support the Government.
      If the House believes that the measure should lead to fairness and a balance of power, the different relationship between a pub landlord and a pub tenant and between a shop landlord and a shop tenant should be recognised in the legislation. Great changes are taking place in the industry. We need to achieve the right relationship so as to ensure that the tenant has appropriate power. If the Government do not accept the amendment, the legislation will be completely worthless. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will accept the argument that has been advanced not only by the Opposition but by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Stan Crowther: First, I have to declare an interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
      This matter was debated in Committee, but it is right to air it again on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has already pointed out that it is crucial to the effective operation of the Bill.
      All hon. Members believe that the Government are moving in the right direction by extending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to licensed premises. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is over whether their laudable intentions will be frustrated if the
      30
      contracting-out provisions are allowed to apply to licensed premises. Many Opposition Members believe that they will. As my hon. Friend said, the measure provides for contracting-out if the landlord and tenant agree and if they can obtain the consent of the court.
      In nine out of 10 cases there is no incentive for the landlord or the tenant to wish to contract out. The owner of a butcher's shop, a draper's shop or an office block is quite content to receive his rent, subject to the proper reviews, and, as long as the premises are properly maintained, he has no further interest in the business. He is not manufacturing the goods that are being sold in the shop. That is the essential difference between those premises and licensed premises as, clearly, a brewery company owning a tied house has a direct interest in the business which the tenant is running in those premises. In those circumstances, it may well be that the landlord company does not wish to be restricted even by the modest protection that the Bill will provide for the tenant. If a company does not wish to be so restricted, it has only to require the tenant to agree to contract-out.
      It is nonsense to suggest that a tenant who wishes to renew his existing tenancy under a new agreement, or a would-be tenant who wishes to enter the licensed trade for the first time, is in an equal negotiating position with the landlord. Of course he is not, because the landlord owns the premises. If the landlord decides to contract-out, it is no good the tenant saying that he does not wish to contract-out because he simply will not have his tenancy renewed or if he is a newcomer, he will not get the tenancy in the first place. That is at the heart of the problem.
      The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that contracting-out should not be permitted for licensed premises. Having made it quite clear that it 'was considering the matter in terms of competition, it stated in paragraph 12.138:
      "We have set out in some detail our view that the tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen".
      It continued in paragraph 12.141:
      "we recommend that there should be no right on the part of the parties to contract out of the provsions contained in Part II of that Act, except for a preliminary period not exceeding one year."
      It was quite clear that to improve competition and enhance the position of licensees as independent business men, contracting-out of the Landlord and Tenant Act should not be allowed in that type of business.
      The Opposition and the National Licensed Victuallers Association think that the former Secretary of State Lord Young got it right when he said that he was minded to implement that and other recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He was certainly wrong about some other recommendations, but he was undoubtedly right about the narrow section of the report that related to the rights of tenants, the protection of tenants and the relationship between tenants and landlords.
      It is interesting that the Opposition seek to further the Government's alleged competition policy and their policy of protecting the interests of small businesses, and the Minister is opposing that. It is ironic, but it is a fact. The Opposition are on the side of the small businesses and, unfortunately, the Government are on the side of the big businesses, and, in the case of a conflict, the rights of the small businesses —the tenant licensees —will not be protected.

      31
      We are entitled to ask why the Government did that complete about-turn. The then Secretary of State said that he was minded to implement those recommendations, yet within a few weeks he changed his mind. He decided that the extra protection for tenants that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had recommended should not be implemented. Since then, we have been told of the reason for that. The Brewers Society and some brewery companies told Ministers that they did not like that proposal. That much was made crystal clear in mid-1989, long before the Bill appeared.
      4.15 pm
      There are several other proposals that the brewers do not like, but nevertheless the Government will proceed with them. The large brewers are not happy about the disposal of many tied houses, and weakening the tie among those that remain. Why are the Government proceeding with the proposals that brewers do not like —tied houses, guest beers and so on —but dropping the proposals on the protection of tenants?
      That is clearly an example of sweetening the pill. Brewers will have a bitter pill to swallow, but it appears to me that Ministers believe that by abandoning the proposal to give tenants additional protection that bitter pill will be sweetened. The Government are sacrificing the interests of tenants, who have been made pawns in this high-powered game between the Government and the brewers.
      I am convinced that many brewers will not insist on contracting-out, and I have been assured on that point by several representatives of large breweries, but the fact that the Brewers Society has insisted that the contracting-out provisions remain in the Bill must mean that in certain cases brewers intend to use them. Otherwise, there would be no point in its insisting that those provisions should remain in the legislation.
      I do not doubt the good faith of the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I am convinced, and have been throughout, that, within the constraints imposed on him, he is anxious to do his best for his tenants. I should welcome his assurance that contracting-out will be closely monitored. I shall start that sentence again when the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has stopped talking to him. Will he assure us that he will monitor contracting-out and that if it appears excessive he will consider introducing new legislation to stop it?
      That is a fair request, because if contracting-out takes place on a significant scale the purpose of the Bill will be destroyed. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is anxious to see the Bill operated properly and to ensure that the protection that he wishes to provide tenants is in place. I am, therefore, sure that he would not be happy if contracting-out took place on a large scale. I hope that he will assure us that the position will be monitored and that if there is an abuse of contracting-out new legislation will be introduced.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This classic issue presents itself repeatedly and involves the difference between the requirement for more competition and freedom, which will stimulate more business and industry, and the requirement to protect the weaker party. It arises particularly in landlord and tenant legislation and it is what the tenant protection elements of the law have been all about for
      32
      many years. By and large, there is a tendency to err on the side of the tenant and to protect his interests against those of the landlord. Successive Governments, including the present Conservative Government, have operated in that way, but some of us believe that the protective elements tend to frustrate the purpose of the new laws.
      I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), who represents certain interests, that this is a sinister arrangement to sweeeten the pill for the brewer. As I represent the brewing centre of England and, of course, have a well-known and declared interest on that industry's behalf, one would not expect me to accept the view that the brewers aim to exploit tenants by including in the Bill a provision whereby brewers can easily opt out of the restriction.
      From time to time, there will be a temptation to take advantage of the contracting-out provision. That is human and business nature. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reached that conclusion in its report. This issue is a potential irritant between landlord and tenants. In a sense, I am speaking on behalf not of the great brewers of Burton upon Trent but of the licensees, the tenants of the great public houses, as the weaker party to the contract. I therefore have a common cause with the hon. Member for Rotherham.
      The Government should build into the Bill a mite more protection for the licensed victualler —the tenant. I make that claim because it would be better for the relationships that are to exist between landlord and tenant. The tenant should not think that a provision in the legislation will work against his interests. I also make that claim because the Government would not wish to be seen to introduce a measure erring on the side of the brewer and against the tenant. Peculiarly, perhaps, I thus find myself speaking against the interests that I normally represent. Not all the brewers in Burton upon Trent are big —there are some very small ones such as Burton Bridge and Heritage.
      In order that justice may be seen to be done, any temptation to think that the contracting-out provisions are built in for the benefit of the stronger party should be mitigated by more action than is shown in the Bill. On balance, the Government should take seriously the amendments that have been tabled and be prepared to amend the Bill, although perhaps not precisely in those terms, to give more confidence to licensees. I know the brewers in my constituency very well and I can state that view, knowing that it is not their intention to exploit licensees. It may not, strictly speaking, be necessary to make such a change in the Bill but so that everybody may confidently believe that the Bill is even-handed and will protect licensees, I ask that the proposed change or a change approximating to it should be introduced.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the Opposition and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I shall deal with some of the points that they made and then state the Government's position on this important subject.
      It is true that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 arose out of the rebuilding of urban areas —against a different background. But the important clause in the Bill is based on legislation introduced by the Labour Administration in 1969, against a very different background indeed, and I think that the reasons given by that Labour Government

      33
      hold true today. The Labour Government were concerned about the impact on the availability of business accommodation that would follow if a contracting-out clause were not introduced. The then Solicitor-General made the matter clear:
      "one must hold a balance between what is needed for the effective protection of tenants and what would fetter freedom of contract to such an extent that lettings were discouraged and worthwhile accommodation left unoccupied."—[Official Report, 24 June 1969; Vol. 785, c. 1424.]
      That is the nub of our case. The Government accept the wisdom of the Labour proposal in 1969, which created a balance in tenants' and landlords' rights that has lasted for the past 21 years and which will now be applied to include brewing landlords and their tenants, too. The provision was based on an independent study from the Law Commission, which also expressed its fears about the non-availability of tenancies. It was against that background that the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Act were made.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) rightly said that the issue before the House is whether we have struck the right balance between landlords' and tenants' interests. The House is united in wanting to achieve a fair balance between landlord and tenant which provides something in the commercial arrangement for the benefit of both parties so that enough tenancies are available. The Government contend that that is best supplied in the form of the balance in the 1954 Act as amended in 1969.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North also asked the important question whether undue pressure could be exerted on tenants as a result of the contracting-out proposal. It may be helpful if I remind the House how the contracting-out proposal works. Tenant and landlord have to go jointly to the court and seek its permission to have a contracted-out tenancy under the 1954 Act. That is, in itself, a protection against the very kind of undue pressure against which hon. Members wish to guard. The landlord and the tenant need to take separate legal advice from their lawyers and to go to court, and —among other things —the court must satisfy itself that both parties to the agreement know what they are entering into and understand the basis on which they are making their joint application. That is an important safeguard built into the judicial process relating to contracting-out.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is quite right that there is provision for taking legal advice on going to court, but that can only make a licensee aware of what his rights are; it will not affect the pressure that may be placed on him to go ahead with the matter even though he knows what his rights are. That is what bothers hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is one thing not to know one's rights; it is another to know one's rights and not to want to act because one feels that one is under pressure.
      Mr. Redwood: I think that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that there is an important safeguard against a tenant unknowingly entering into a contract agreement because he has not been properly advised or there is not a formal process.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Barry Field: I apologise for not being present throughout the proceedings, but the Isle of Wight ferries were delayed by the severe weather. The Isle of Wight licensed victuallers association is worried about this point. As my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and I have the largest number of tied houses in the Whitbread brewery. The association is concerned that both new and existing tenancies may be put under considerable pressure, particularly when they take in host beer. Will the tenants negotiate as individuals? If so, they will face the considerable power of a large company. Surely that does not put tenants in a good position.
      Mr. Redwood: The contract is entered into freely between two parties and the balance of power depends on the individual strengths of the local markets and the circumstances at the time.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Redwood: If I may, I shall deal with one point at a time. That may be helpful to the House and it is difficult to deal with three at a time.
      The tenant will have the advice that he wants, for example, from the NLVA, which is diligent and helpful, and from his legal adviser. The worry is that if such an arrangement is not allowed, many people who want tenancies simply will not be able to get them. We should remember that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission exempted the first 12 months in its recommendation, specifically because many people who want to become tenants will have no track record and, therefore, will be unlikely to qualify as tenants, so a trial period is needed for them to introduce themselves to the brewers and for the brewers to make an assessment. Unfortunately, if that is only for 12 months and not thereafter, the market will become ossified and many subsequent potential new entrants will not have the same facility as those in the 12-month period.
      Mr. David Martin: Can my hon. Friend deal with the fear that, although there is contracting-out, if third parties or a potential tenant does not agree to contract-out, a landlord will be inclined to find someone who will and say to the others, "If you won't, they will, so I will give it to them"?
      Mr. Redwood: The purpose of the legislation is to give tenants greater security of tenure. The House is losing sight of the fundamental reason why the House is united on the principle of extending landlord-tenant protection to those categories of tenant. It would not be possible for a brewer to force out a tenant on that basis, unless he could terminate the tenancy for one of the restricted reasons given in the landlord and tenant legislation. That is protection which tenants do not have now which is why the NLVA urged me to introduce the Bill as soon as possible. The Government have introduced it at the earliest available opportunity to extend that protection as soon as the Bill can receive Royal Assent and the due number of weeks have passed for it to come into effect.
      Mr. Crowther: Will the Minister address the following scenario? A tenant, who has been running his business for a long time and has developed a good business, even without the benefit of landlord and tenant legislation

      35
      protection, may think that because this Bill is passed he will have protection under this legislation. When his existing tenancy expires, he will start talking to the landlord about his new tenancy which he will expect to be covered by landlord and tenant legislation protection. The landlord will say, "Hang on, I have decided that we shall contract-out." The tenant will say, "Surely a new Bill has gone through Parliament." The landlord will say, "I cannot help that. You will agree to go with me to the court and seek consent for contracting-out. Otherwise, your tenancy is finished and I shall find a new tenant." How will that problem be overcome? That is most worrying and I should like the Minister to comment on it.
      Mr. Redwood: The purpose of the legislation for all the tenancies covered by it is to necessitate, for the first time for pub tenancies, that a landlord has one of a limited number of reasons for terminating a tenancy. That is why the extra protection is being granted by the legislation. That is the point of it.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I took an office in my constituency under precisely those conditions, with an opting-out clause. I had no choice as the landlord insisted on that, so I went along with it. For an office, that does not matter that much, but for a tenancy the entire living depends on the location. The Minister is saying both that tenants need protection against landlords who may not operate fairly, and that protection should be removed for precisely those landlords against whom the tenants need protecting.
      Mr. Redwood: I am not doing that. The legislation will provide the protection that all hon. Members want. After that, where the case is governed by the legislation, there will be a limited number of circumstances in which the tenancy can be terminated. That is why everyone agrees that we should extend that protection. It is rather similar to the good debate in Committee on the question of the widows' year and the protection for them. We all agreed that a widow should not be driven out of the tenancy on the death of her husband. However, the protection offered in the legislation is more generous and comprehensive for the widow, if she is the nominated successor of the deceased publican, than would have been the case under the amendments proposed in Committee, which is why I did not accept them. It is not that I wish widows to end up on the streets, but that I believe that the balance of legislation offers them a better break than the more limited proposal in the amendment. There is a great deal of good news in this legislation. The Government are pleased to be introducing it and I know that it is welcomed by tenants, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) kindly said. That is the basis of the settlement.
      I wish to deal with points that are relevant to the amendment. First, the Government are concerned not to reduce the number of tenancies available by introducing the wrong type of legislation to govern tenant security. One of the consequences of the Opposition's proposal is likely to be a reduction in the number of tenancies. That would be bad news for a number of people who would like to become tenants, and even for those who are already tenants. It might intensify the search for gateway exits by the landlord breweries for certain tenancies.
      36
      Secondly, the amendment would be especially harsh on the untried entrant —the person who wishes to enter the pub trade and who may turn out to be a good landlord, providing more life and change in landlord-tenant business. Without that type of contracted-out tenancy arrangement, it would be difficult to have the right number of new entrants coming forward, and thereby allow brewers to give them the opportunity to prove themselves.
      Thirdly, there is a code of practice operated by the Brewers Society, which I know the hon. Member for Rotherham has welcomed. It will continue to be used by many reputable brewers, in addition to the provisions in the legislation that will become legally binding.
      I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said about new developments and changes in the type of pubs on offer within new town centres. The hon. Gentleman makes my fourth point for me. It is because it is a changing industry where the location and style of pubs are changing, and new pubs are becoming available in new types of development, that there needs to be some flexibility to allow new entrants and those who wish to experiment with a different style of tenancy within the pub framework. That may necessitate different marketing and a different approach to the business. That is what the provision in the Law of Property Act 1969 facilitates and permits.
      I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North that amendment No. 3 is the key amendment by which to judge the legislation. I read in the Morning Advertiser on 26 February that three matters were crucial to the test of the legislation and that there would be an opportunity to debate all of them on amendments today. It referred to the inclusion of a right-to-buy clause, and the introduction of the widows' year. The hon. Gentleman might concede that his amendment is not the crucial one by which to judge the balance of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he is taking back his words. There are a number of ways to judge the balance in the legislation between landlords and tenants.
      Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that, of the amendments that we tabled, No. 3 is the key one? Had other amendments been called that would still have been so. I had hoped that the Minister recognised from the contributions of some of his hon. Friends that if the amendment is not accepted many of the other provisions in the Bill will be meaningless. That is the point we have tried to establish.
      Mr. Redwood: Therein lays the disagreement between us. I do not believe that the amendment is a key one in relationship to the range of amendments looked at in Committee. This is an important debate, but it is not the most important, over and above the other amendments examined.
      I was disappointed that the Opposition did not table new amendments in the light of our debates in Committee. I felt that we had a good Committee stage, that we made a lot of progress, found some common ground and identified some problems. I thought that the Opposition would introduce new amendments that addressed what the Committee had debated. Instead, we are faced with amendments that were debated extensively in Committee.

      37
      Those amendments were considerably damaged in Committee because they did not make sense in relation to the balance in the landlord and tenant legislation.
      Mr. Dixon: If, in Committee, the Minister agreed with some of the Opposition's arguments, it was up to him to table amendments on Report; it is not up to the Opposition.
      Mr. Redwood: If I thought that there were things that needed varying in the balance of the legislation I would have introduced amendments today. If the hon. Gentleman refers back to the text of our Committee proceedings he will see that in a number of important respects, such as the widows' year and the right to buy, the amendments tabled did not offer anything above what already existed in legislation or in the framework that governs the relationship between the landlord and tenant. That is why I am happy with the Bill and recommend it to the House.
      I suggest that the House votes against the amendment, as it would not improve the Bill and would make life a lot more difficult for many people who want to become the tenants of brewers.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: I submit that the Government's position on this Bill is clear—not for the reasons suggested by the Minister —as they are prone before the brewing interests. Today those interests have been much more fairly represented than those of the tenants.
      The amendment concerns contracting out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) is right in saying that the world has changed in the intervening 35 years, but, sadly, some things do not change—for example, the desire of the stronger partner in any agreement to obtain more than his or her fair share of influence over it. There is a strong desire to put one over on the other participant. The Bill fails to address that problem. That is its fundamental weakness and why we tabled the amendment.
      We believe that the balance of interest must be maintained, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has said, at a time of great change in the industry. It is facing a major reorganisation and we remain convinced that it will not benefit the tenant licensee.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) is well known for the vigour with which he promotes the case of the National Licensed Victuallers Association. He is also well known for the forthright way in which he declares his interest in any matter on which he speaks to the House. I wish that his example was followed more widely.
      My hon. Friend has quoted several detailed examples of the fears that contracting-out raises in the minds of tenants and their representatives. I do not intend to cite any more evidence in support of our case today as I believe it has been proved.
      My hon. Friends and I are not minded to accept the Minister's lightly given assurances. We shall press the amendment to a Division because of the Minister's failure to produce any evidence to show that both parties will benefit from the contracting-out provisions.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 160.Division No. 96

      Division No. 96

      [4.44 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Alton, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Kennedy, Charles

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Barron, Kevin

      Leighton, Ron

      Blair, Tony

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      McWilliam, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Marek, Dr John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Meale, Alan

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Michael, Alun

      Cartwright, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cohen, Harry

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Coleman, Donald

      Mullin, Chris

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Cox, Tom

      Pendry, Tom

      Crowther, Stan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Prescott, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Redmond, Martin

      Dixon, Don

      Reid, Dr John

      Doran, Frank

      Richardson, Jo

      Eastham, Ken

      Rooker, Jeff

      Fisher, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Foster, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Hardy, Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Haynes, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Henderson, Doug

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Mr. Tony Banks and

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mr. John Cummings.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Amos, Alan

      Dicks, Terry

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Durant, Tony

      Baldry, Tony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evennett, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fallon, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forman, Nigel

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gow, Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Gregory, Conal

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butler, Chris

      Hague, William

      Butterfill, John

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifle)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Colvin, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Janman, Tim

      Cran, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Critchley, Julian

      Key, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Knapman, Roger

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      39

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Knowles, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Latham, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lord, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Maclean, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Shelton, Sir William

      Madel, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mans, Keith

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maples, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marland, Paul

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stern, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Thorne, Neil

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tredinnick, David

      Mudd, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Paice, James

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Pawsey, James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Portillo, Michael

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, and Prince of Wales's consent, signified].
      4.54 pm
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It gives me pleasure to move the Third Reading of this legislation which will represent a major advance in the security offered to tenants. It is part of the package of measures brought forward as a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the brewery industry and was designed to give to the tenants of brewers and other pub landlords the same protection as is available to other business tenants.
      I know that the measure is welcomed by the National Licensed Victuallers Association and by Members on both sides of the House who wish to see an improvement in the protection of tenants in this important industry. The debates in Committee have been based on an agreement that there should be an improvement in the protection offered to tenants, but there will be detailed debates about the exact nature of that protection, the balance struck in the landlord and tenant legislation and the way in which it might be improved.
      I have sought to show in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the well tried and tested balance of this legislation, introduced in 1954 by a Conservative Administration and amended and improved by a Labour Administration in 1969, is the right balance. It will assure tenants that they have reasonable protection of their tenancies and assure landlords that it is still a worthwhile
      40
      business relationship for them to enter into, so that the supply of tenancies will not dry up. Those seeking to become publicans will thus not be impeded or prevented by over-protective legislation.
      During the debate I have been asked by Members to give some assurance about the kind of monitoring that will take place once the legislation has received Royal Assent. I will give two pledges. There will be monitoring of the general balance of landlord and tenant legislation as the Department of the Environment goes about its business as custodians of the corpus of the law and seeing that it is modern and up to date. There will also be monitoring by the competition authorities to ensure that the package of measures presented by the Government to implement the findings of the MMC report have a good impact on the brewing industry as a whole. I have already said to the NLVA that its views will be welcomed through the usual channels if it wishes to make points about the way in which the new settlement for the brewing industry is developing.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. He may have noticed that I deliberately abstained in the last vote because I was not satisfied that he had given that assurance hitherto. Will he go one stage further? Monitoring is all very well, but if it is discovered that something is going wrong and tenants are being exploited by landlords, will he be prepared to suggest amendments to the legislation to provide the kind of protection envisaged in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?
      Mr. Redwood: I have explained that we must examine the legislation as a whole as it affects all business tenancies. I have also explained that there are a number of safeguards within the structure of that well tried and tested legislation —most notably the fact that the tenant and landlord have to go to court. They must jointly and severally present their wish to contract out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and it is that court process which provides the best guarantee that hon. Members seek.
      The legislation must be seen against the background of the changes in the brewing industry. A number of changes were under way anyway because of economic change within the industry. The nature and style of pubs are changing. Brewers were looking again at their types of asset portfolios and deciding whether it was right for them to be both brewers and pub owners. The MMC report, which found against the brewers on a public interest basis, has resulted in measures which will serve to reduce and weaken the ties between brewers and their tenants. That is welcomed on both sides of the House as being in the interests of a more competitive industry and of a better deal for the customers of pubs. There may well also be benefits for the licensees themselves, many of whom want parts of the MMC report implemented and have made representations accordingly.
      In the course of the debates, the Committee and the House have examined the position of widows. I said a few minutes ago that the Government were anxious to see that widows were well protected. I repeat that under this legislation they will be able to take over tenancies from their deceased husbands if those husbands have nominated them as their successors. Widows will then have all the rights and obligations of the tenancies previously enjoyed by the landlords who predeceased them. That is an important advance for widows in the industry, which is

      41
      distinct from some other sorts of business tenancy in that the business will also often be the living accommodation of the tenant concerned.
      The Opposition have raised the issue of the right to buy. In their proposals on that right they limited themselves to the idea that in a limited number of cases there would be an explicit legal right to buy at best price by the tenant. The Government welcome the opportunity for tenants to buy their pubs, but it is in the commercial interests of the brewer to sell his pub for the best price. I am sure that many brewers thinking of selling pubs will also think of offering them to the tenants and will be open to approaches from the tenants if the latter can come up with the sort of good price that the Opposition had in mind. I cannot see that the Opposition amendment would make much difference to that right. Tenants may well buy their pubs more commonly from their brewer landlords and we should be happy about that if it arose out of usual commercial arrangements within the industry.
      Contracting out has been extensively debated and in Committee we also looked into the issue of goodwill. Any departures from the regime identified in the landlord and tenant legislation would require careful consideration as they would affect the delicate balance between landlord and tenant set out in the law. However, I have listened carefuly to the comments in Committee and to other representations on this subject, especially to the argument that publicans should be entitled to compensation at a higher multiplier on rateable value than other tenants as they are usually in the same business as their landlords.
      Those are arguments of substance on which I continue to hold an open mind. The representations will need to be considered not only from the perspective of the brewing industry but in the wider framework of the provisions for business tenants in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, for which the Department of the Environment has general responsibility. Ministers will be looking at the script of today's debate and the Committee debates for that and for other reasons.
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: I understand that compensation is dealt with by the Department of the Environment, and I hope that it will examine the issue seriously. It was discussed fully on Second Reading and at great length in Committee. Although we should not deviate from the Landlord and Tenant Act more than necessary, this problem must be dealt with because many tenants work in pubs for many years only to find at the end of that time that the brewery can take back the pub and their years of work may have amounted to nothing. If the Department of the Environment could be persuaded to use a higher multiplier, that might overcome some of the objections in this area.
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has professional experience in related subjects. He knows that the valuation of goodwill is extremely difficult and to try to incorporate it in the legislation by means of the amendment moved today would be neither possible nor desirable, given the compexities in the legislation. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment, but the issue must be examined in the context of level treatment as between different types of business tenancy, and of the balance in the legislation.
      By any standards this is the most important advance in tenant protection since the war. The Government are pleased to bring forward this legislation, which was sought
      42
      by certain Opposition Members as well as by Conservative Members. It was also sought by the NLVA, which has actively put its case across. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by the Opposition and by the NLVA in its correspondence with many hon. Members. A number of hon. Members have written to me; to list them all would take too long, but I hope that my remarks today and my replies in correspondence will meet their concerns. On issues such as widows' rights, this is an important advance, and I am proud to commend the Bill to the House.
      5.7 pm
      Mr. Henderson: As the House will recall, the Opposition originally intended to support the Bill in principle, as we said clearly on Second Reading. I trust that that impression was reinforced in Committee. Throughout the Opposition have attempted to put genuine points to the Government, of which there were four or five principal ones in Committee.
      The amendment that we moved on Report emphasised what we believed to be the key modification required to give the legislation teeth, but throughout our proceedings the Government have put obstacles in our path. The Minister has already acknowledged that there was a good debate in Committee. There were points of agreement, and some new points with which the Government had considerable sympathy were made. But the Minister's praise for his colleagues in Committee has been more generous than his actions. The truth is that this is the same Bill, on Third Reading, as the one which the Government presented to the House.
      The Minister has said that the legislation enhancing tenants' protection is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the industry to have come before the House. I agree, but I enter the caveat that it is only potentially the most important legislation. Because of the Government's failure to agree to modifications put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the legislation will be left considerably weaker than would have been desirable —and necessary to achieve unanimous support.
      The Government have not listened to the arguments —for example, about the timing of the legislation. If too long a period is allowed in which contracts can be renewed, undue pressure is placed on tenants by brewers to change contracts to the disadvantage of the tenant. That will also be disadvantageous to competition in the industry, and it will ultimately be disadvantageous to the consumer.
      The Government have failed to acknowledge the importance of what is referred to as the right to buy. In Committee the Government acknowledged that that issue will rear its head regularly as brewers begin to dispose of tenancies, swap them and seek to change the nature of tenancy contracts. At that time the issue of what happens to the existing tenant will arise. Will he have rights that accrue because of his commitment to the business and the tenancy? In Committee the Government acknowledged that the Opposition proposals about that were limited and related only to a specific proposal where a brewer disposes of a tenancy to a third party non-brewer. It did not cover a brewer disposing of a tenancy to another brewer.
      The suggestion advanced by the Opposition in Committee related to the right to buy so that when a brewer feels that there is a need for commercial or other reasons to dispose of a tenancy the person or body that has the first right to buy is the sitting tenant. There was no

      43
      question of the brewer losing out if that suggestion had been accepted because encompassed in the suggestion was the clear intention that the brewer would get the appropriate rate for the tenancy.
      Surely a tenant who has given a lengthy commitment to a business the success of which has been largely, if not solely, due to the efforts of that tenant should accrue some property rights. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, and that as the Bill goes to another place he will liaise to achieve modifications to strengthen the legislation. I cannot understand the Government's attitude in this matter. How can they say that a council house tenant can accrue property rights and that the management of a company that is to be disposed of can accrue management rights that would lead to a management buy-out while saying that there is no equivalent accrual for the tenant of a brewery house?
      Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there is an absolute right for a management buy-out. There is no such right in business law in Britain. There are voluntary agreements in the same way as there can be voluntary agreements for publicans to buy pubs from their landlords. Business and residential tenancies are on a different basis, and to introduce a right to buy in one sector of the business tenancy market would give rise to all sorts of distortions between this and other types of business.
      Mr. Henderson: The Minister should have thought about my point before he intervened. We are not suggesting that. The Government have been keen to dispose of public sector investments such as the National Freight Corporation. The first thing that they try to do is to establish that there is a management buy-out right and management is encouraged to come forward with proposals so that it can continue to earn the property rights that it has established through its commitment to the business. It is completely inconsistent for the Government not to recognise that when a brewery is disposing of a tenanted public house property rights should accrue.
      What is so different about pub tenants? Do they not want to make a contribution to the success of a business and earn property rights? Should they not benefit from any improvement in a competitive environment? Have the Government moved away from their original position, and are they now saying that they no longer give ideological support to property rights?
      When it suits the Government, there is one law for Conservative ideology and quite another when the Conservative party's significant paymasters seem likely to be tied by legislation. Is the relationship between the brewer and the tenant to be linked to the strong support that brewers have traditionally given to the Conservative party? Has Conservative ideology been extended to that front as well? The Government have failed to face the genuine points made about property rights for pub tenants.
      We heard in Committee that the Government have sympathy for the widow's clause, or what could be called the Annie Walker clause. The Minister spoke about that today. Pub tenants will be looking for more than sympathy if the existing legislation is the only protection that may be
      44
      given to a spouse on the death of his or her partner.If there is any argument about the estate, the surviving spouse could be involved in lengthy arguments about its disposal before being able to clarify whether he or she would be able to continue with the tenancy. Suggestions about that were advanced by the Opposition and others in Committee but they were not accepted. If the Government are prepared further to consider the matter and perhaps to talk to their colleagues in another place, protection for a spouse could be built into the legislation. That would eliminate the worry about whether the spouse is to benefit from any of the estate and would make an important contribution to strengthening the legislation.
      The Government have failed to listen to arguments about compensation, some of which were advanced vehemently by Conservative Members. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has an open mind on the matter. Pub tenants could lose their tenancies because of a change in circumstances faced by breweries, and those people will be looking for more than an open mind. They will seek a firm commitment that in the event of them having to dispose of their tenancies they will get fair compensation. They do not want to be dragged through endless court cases in an attempt to establish that they have a right to higher compensation.
      If such court cases ensue, it is clear that the people involved would be unattractive propositions to secure a future tenancy with the same or another brewer. If compensation were automatic it would be accepted by the industry, and when commercial circumstances changed giving rise to a legitimate need for a brewer to dispose of a pub, nothing would be held against the tenant who insisted on receiving the proper compensation. The tenant would be free to secure another tenancy to protect his living. That is important, and it is not enough for the Government to say that they will keep an open mind. It is incumbent on them to make firm proposals.
      The Government have also failed Scotland. In Committee it was said that hundreds of tenancies in Scotland are not covered by the legislation. By and large, the same circumstances exist there, although the market in Scotland is dominated by two brewery groups. Tenants in Scotland will look for some protection. I understand the problems of incorporating Scottish measures in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will bring forward other appropriate legislation to protect the industry and the tenants.
      I protest about the Government's failure to take account of the arguments in relation to the contracting-out amendment that has just been lost on a vote. It was important in building up comprehensive and balanced legislation that would regulate the industry in the future and would give the tenant the necessary degree of protection, but would not completely hamstring the brewer. It is absolutely crucial that there should be such a provision. It is not enough for the Government to talk about monitoring what will happen and about being prepared to look at the situation in future.
      It is quite clear, from the arguments that were put forward in previous debates in this House, that many hon. Members recognise that this is not a question of landlord and tenant going hand-in-hand to court and saying, "Please may we contract out so that we may make our own arrangements?" That is not the way that the world works; certainly it is not the way that the business world works. Inevitably, human nature being what it is, landlords would

      45
      seek to sign agreements that included provision for contracting out of the legislation, and, through time, tenants who did not accept those clauses would not be offered tenancies.
      Another danger is that brewery companies could get together and form an unofficial, informal cartel to protect the interests of the brewer landlord. Increasingly, I believe, tenants would be offered only contracts on a mutually agreed basis that were not covered by the Act. People who know the industry will realise that, inevitably, those contracts would be weaker than contracts signed on a free basis but with minimum protection built in by the legislation.
      The real test of the Government's willingness to listen to the arguments at all stages of the progress of this Bill is whether they are prepared to face up to the situation that has been presented in relation to contracting out. If they were so prepared, they would face up to the brewers' lobby. In that case, the silence that the brewers have maintained over recent months would soon give way to an outcry from them. I believe that the Government could have faced that situation and that they could have argued with the brewers that, in order to bring about balance, it was necessary to have a different relationship in respect of pub tenancies from that prevailing in the case of shops. Throughout the discussion of the Bill the Government have had ample opportunity to listen to the arguments, to take heed of the points that have been made, and to make accommodations.
      I should have liked to be able to recommend firmly that the Opposition support the Third Reading of this Bill. However, those who have followed the debate will be able to draw no conclusion other than that the Government have not been prepared to listen, that there has been no movement from the Government on the main issues. There has been no movement on the issue of timing, on the issue of the right to buy, on the issue of compensation, or on the issue of protection for spouses. Above all, there has been no movement on the vexed question whether pub landlords and brewers should be able to contract out of the legislation.
      Thus, the Bill is left ambiguous, unbalanced, spineless, and stacked in favour of the brewer. There are minor areas in which protection has been achieved for the tenant, but in all the circumstances I have grave misgivings about recommending that the Bill be given a Third Reading. My hon. Friend who will wind up for the Opposition may well be able to assist the House by giving some direction on the matter. I hope that, having heard the debate, he will feel that there would be merit in giving the Bill a Third Reading. However, as I have said, I have serious misgivings about letting the legislation proceed to the next stage.
      5.25 pm
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has gone over the top. Manifestly this is, in essence, a good Bill. It is one that all sides have agreed is necessary and will be for the benefit of the industry. It is about the only good thing to have come out of the whole Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which the Government adopted too speedily and which will inevitably reduce the number of tied houses—indeed the number of public houses—and may even reduce the
      46
      number of British breweries as brewers have to choose between the capital value of their manufacturing element and the capital value of their tied house element. Already there are signs that brewers in my constituency are having to reassess their whole contribution to the industry. That is very sad, and it was a bad day when the Government committed themselves to accepting the report.
      Today, however, we are dealing with the good aspect of the report—the aspect which gives licensees protection. One must ask whether the Bill is as good as it might be. I think the answer is that it is not perfect but that it is perfectable. I do not for one moment doubt the Government's good intentions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the assurances that he has given in response to interventions by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), by myself and, no doubt, by others expressing concern about monitoring.
      I do not doubt that, in general, the brewers' intentions are good. After all, the good of the industry is their concern. That means also the good of the tenants, who are a vital part of the industry. If the tenants are unhappy or dissatisfied, the industry will not be so successful or so flourishing as it would be if they were happy. Nor do I share the conspiracy theory so beloved of the Opposition in regard to this and many other matters. But I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to go one small step further and to commit themselves to ensuring that the legislation would not act unfairly against the tenant in that it might result in undue pressure or inadequate compensation.
      Here I must ask myself some questions. If I were a tenant, would I feel terribly reassured by the fact that I could get legal advice as to my legal rights? Would I feel terribly reassured by being able to go before a court and ask it to decide on those rights? Would I feel reassured by the Government's undertaking to monitor the Act, bearing in mind that they have given no further assurance? I must ask myself whether, in some circumstances, I might have fears that I could lose my livelihood and that, in the end, I might have no choice about entering into a contract to which I was very much the weaker party, and under which I might lay myself open to exploitation. When, as a hypothetical licensee, I ask myself those questions I have to reply that in some circumstances I might indeed have just those fears.
      This is not a matter of life and death. It is not a matter of the utmost gravity. It is not a resigning matter. It is not a matter that will arise very often. However, it seems to me to be one in respect of which good will—in its common-sense meaning, not its legalistic meaning—might bring a more reassuring response from the Government. It would surely be sensible for the Government to show just a modicum more good will and to give that extra reassurance to a very particular kind of tenant—the tenant who stands to lose not only the roof over his head but his very livelihood and who is, therefore, more subject to pressure even than tenants in other circumstances.
      Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he could not, at this late stage—or, if he would have to get involved in too many consultations before giving a commitment, when the matter comes before another place —give an undertaking that the Government will look again at the aspect of good will; that he will give the further reassurance that he will be prepared to act by further legislation if necessary if his monitoring turns up the conclusion that this legislation is not working as

      47
      effectively, efficiently or fairly as was intended. Perhaps in the Upper House that matter will be given greater consideration. That is the question that I ask of my hon. Friend, who I know as a reasonable, flexible, sensible, understanding and caring Minister. I ask him to give that gentle, insubstantial—except in its effect—assurance that the matter will be further considered when the Bill is presented to another place. If he will do so, I shall give the Bill my wholehearted support and not just my majority support with a minority of dissenting feeling.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Stan Crowther: I share the disappointment of other right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill reaches Third Reading in exactly the same form that it received its Second Reading. It is most unfortunate that the Government have failed to make even one concession. The Minister said that he has received letters from many right hon. and hon. Members—and no doubt letters from many of his own right hon. and hon. Friends were among them. Apparently, those letters had no more impact than all the arguments made in Committee and on Report. I share the hope that the Minister will introduce improvements to the Bill when it reaches the other place.
      The tragedy is that we have totally failed to persuade the Minister that the business in question is unique and has many features that distinguish it from other types of premises. It is irrelevant to say, as the Minister did, that the Bill provides the same protection as that given to other types of business tenants. The tenants of licensed premises operate in wholly different circumstances.
      I shall not bore the House by recounting the catalogue of features that distinguish licensed premises. The Minister has already acknowledged one of the most obvious—that in most cases the premises serve as the tenant's home as well as his place of business. That alone is good reason for providing additional protection. Also, the tenant himself must hold a licence, apart from that granted in respect of the premises. I know of no other business in which the individual running it must hold a licence so that his customers can consume on the premises the goods that he sells.
      Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the individual can also lose his licence through circumstances beyond his control? For example, a person might come to his public house and cause a disturbance, and the police might then object to the publican continuing to hold his licence—the loss of which would also mean the loss of his livelihood.
      Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is certainly correct. Also, if a licensee loses his premises because of a decision by his landlord, unlike a butcher, draper or grocer, he cannot move into new premises just down the road and open another business. That is because the whole operation is controlled by a licensing system. The licensee of a public house is more vulnerable than an ordinary shopkeeper, which is another reason why he should be given additional protection.
      Another unique feature is that the person carrying on the business does not own the goodwill of it. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report pointed out, he is very much in the position of being an employee of the
      48
      brewery. He is there to sell its products—but at the end of the day, there is nothing to cover him for goodwill. The MMC pointed out that people in that situation should be given extra protection, to strengthen their position as independent business men.
      It is a question of allowing licensees to compete effectively. I thought that a Government committed to competition would be happy to accept amendments to improve the competitiveness of these small business men. Again, I hope that that argument will be taken into account. All is not yet lost, because the Bill has still to go to another place.
      I took the view from the start that we would not be able to amend the Bill through a series of Divisions and that the only hope was to persuade the Minister with our arguments in the belief that he was capable of being swayed by them. We have not yet succeeded in that, but we hope for something in the next few weeks.
      I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that our right-to-buy proposal is narrow in scope, as the Minister acknowledged in Committee. The narrowness of its scope led me to believe that the Government would accept it. It deals only with the situation in which a brewery is proposing to sell a public house to an individual or individual who is not in the brewing business. Only when the pub is going out of brewery ownership do we say that the existing tenant should have an opportunity of buying it at its market value. No one is suggesting that the brewery should lose any money in the transaction—but the man or woman already running the pub should be able to take over the premises if he or she wishes to do so. They may have to borrow the cash, but at least they will have an opportunity to invest in a business that they have been running for a long time.
      A classic example of the need for a right-to-buy provision concerns a pleasant little Victorian pub in my constituency called the Butcher's Arms, which I frequent from time to time. Until a few months ago, it was owned by a company which is not primarily a brewery but which has brewing interests through an acquisition. When the tenant heard that the owners had decided to sell his pub, he asked to be allowed to make a bid for it. He offered a reasonable price, and the owners told him, "You'll need to improve your offer a little because you have a rival. If you can make your price a little higher, you'll be all right." The licensee accordingly increased his bid by £10,000 and waited for the result.
      He heard the outcome not from the owners but from his rival, who walked into his premises one day and said, "I've bought your pub." That is not a very nice thing to happen to any licensee. After only a few weeks, that same pub is again on the market at a price £45,000 higher than that at which it was sold at the end of last year, which is a 50 per cent. increase. Such incidents are not helpful to the trade and certainly not helpful to a licensee trying to keep his business running while the ownership of his pub keeps changing hands.
      I regret that the Minister has been unable to find a solution on compensation. He acknowledges that there is a problem, so I hope that he will find a suitable formula before the Bill goes to the Lords. He says that he still has an open mind, so I hope that he will pay particular attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) in Committee.

      49
      I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Ilford, North was very helpful, straightforward and clear. He spoke on the basis of his long experience. At the third sitting of the Standing Committee he said:
      "The only answer that I can see is for the goodwill to be valued when the tenant first takes the lease and revalued when he goes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 January 1990; c. 64.]
      What could be simpler than that? The Minister says that it would be difficult to write that into the legislation.
      Mr. Bendall: I consulted the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which has some knowledge of valuing. There is a problem with valuing goodwill on the way in and the way out. Its suggestion was that the multiplier on the rateable value for pub tenancies should be greater than the multiplier normally afforded.
      Mr. Crowther: I am grateful for that intervention. I cannot dispute expert professional opinion, but I do not understand why the valuation of goodwill should be terribly difficult at the beginning and at the end of a tenancy, because other businesses are bought or sold on that basis. I should have thought that the use of the multiplier on the rateable value would be a less realistic method, in the sense that it would not take account of the extent to which the business has improved during the time that the tenant was in the premises. Whichever way it is done, there is a case for providing more compensation when businesses are repossessed by the landlord for management. It is a matter of justice.
      I accept that there are difficulties, and I do not pretend that it is a simple matter, but, after all, Ministers are in the business of providing solutions. I should have thought that that is the Government's job in such a case. We are talking about justice, and I hope that the Minister will find a way to provide justice in this matter. If he does that, it will be a better Bill than it is at present.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North that at present the Bill falls a long way short of what is desirable. Obviously it is an advance, but not as major an advance as the Minister suggests. It falls down on a lot of matters, and we have done our best to demonstrate how the Bill could be improved. I am sorry that we have not managed to persuade the Government.
      I remind the Minister that we are talking about a large number of small business men. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we should encourage small businesses in every way that we can. More protection is needed for small business men, who serve a useful purpose in the community, than is so far provided for in the Bill.
      5.42 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The House will be aware that I was not selected to serve on the Standing Committee, but I have read the debates, and I want to make a few comments on a Bill which has, as hon. Members have pointed out, reached this stage unamended.
      I start with the premise that the Bill was intended to improve the lot of people whose business in the licensed trade is often also their home, and that that is a good thing. I support the general thrust of the Bill. I am glad that the Government will incorporate the licensed trade into the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
      I am also reassured by the fact that the concern that I expressed on Second Reading about the widows' year can
      50
      be properly covered by the general Landlord and Tenant Act provision. That will reassure those widows who thought that they might be threatened, particularly after the sudden death of their husbands who were tenants. I understand that they will have the statutory assurance of being able to succeed to the tenancy, irrespective of the fact that they may have entered into any other apparent agreement that would give them fewer rights. I hope that the Minister will reassure me in his winding-up speech that I have understood the matter correctly. Tenants might have signed an agreement that was short of an opting-out agreement but, on the face of it, appeared to mean that after seven, 14 or 28 days they would no longer be able to remain. They will now be overridden by the statutory provisions of the 1954 Act. If that is correct, it is a good thing, and I welcome it.
      I listened to what the Minister said about the period between now and July 1992. In Committee the Under-Secretary confirmed that 90 per cent. of tenancies will fall due to be renewed in the three years between July 1989 and July 1992. Effectively, other than in a few exceptional cases, there will be a complete turnover of tenants during that period. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for all tenancies to be reviewed before the Act bites in 1992.
      Mr. Redwood: The 90 per cent. figure refers to brewery-owned tenancies. The transitional provisions are such that, if the tenancy comes up for renewal prior to 1992, it will come under the security of this legislation. Tenancies that have not been renewed before 1992 will automatically come under the legislation.
      Mr. Hughes: I am concerned that a substantial number of tenancies will expire under the present arrangements between the passing of the Bill and 1992 when the Bill bites and will cover them. [Interruption.] The Minister says no. As I understand it, the whole debate in Committee was about whether the legislation should have immediate effect or take effect in 1992. An amendment was tabled to alter 1992 to 1990 so that there would be no gap. The Ministers' argument was that it would be unfair to impose the new regime on people who had entered into a contract before the legislation was passed and therefore it was only right that the new regime to bring licensed premises under the 1954 Act should come into force after a period of time in which many of the people affected would have had the opportunity to enter new tenancy agreements. Although there will be a provision for opting-out, many present tenants whose tenancies will end are unprotected by the 1954 legislation, and they will not have full statutory protection if they enter a new agreement before 1992.
      The Minister said that he will monitor carefully what happens. I am concerned that there will be a danger that in the next two years a potentially large number of brewers may want to use the opportunities that they have at present but will not have post-1992. Unless there is a speedy response to any information that comes forward, monitoring will not produce the answers in time to be of use.
      Mr. Redwood: The two operative dates are July 1989 and July 1992. Between those dates, expiring tenancies come under legislation, but 10 per cent. of brewery tenancies will not have been renewed in the transitional period, and when they come up for renewal either shortly after 1992 or a long time afterwards they will

      51
      automatically come under the protection of the Act, although the tenancies have not been renewed. Therefore, I do not think that matters are quite as the hon. Gentleman is saying they are.
      Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister give a figure which he did not give, as far as I remember, in Committee? What percentage of current tenancies held in the whole of the licensed trade will come up for renewal between the passage of the Bill, assuming it is passed in the next few months, and July 1922? Obviously some tenancies must be at risk in that period.
      Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the transitional period. We estimate that 90 per cent. of brewery-owned tenancies will be protected by the transitional provisions, while the residual 10 per cent. will receive such protection automatically in July 1992. I have no figures relating to the non-brewery tenancies, as they are a much more amorphous grouping, and I understand that there is no easy way of establishing the proportion. Given that the typical brewery tenancy lasts for three years, however, the hon. Gentleman can see for himself.
      Mr. Hughes: Between now and 1992, when the Act will come fully into force, developments must be monitored responsibly Clearly the most effective monitor is the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to ensure that if the association produces evidence of significant "exploitation" by the brewers, he will contemplate prompt legislation. Only a minor amendment would be necessary to protect tenants' rights, and Conservative as well as Opposition Members have asked the Minister for such an assurance.
      Clearly, the opting-out provision will increase the NLVA's responsibility; it will be up to those who advise tenants to ensure that they are not dragooned into signing an exemption agreement with the brewery. As the Minister well knows, it is always difficult to go behind the face of agreements. It is difficult to disprove, in law, the validity of a contract that appears to have been entered into on a valid basis. Pressure is imposed behind the scenes, and a document eventually appears detailing an agreement containing an exemption clause, but the events leading up to that agreement may not bear revelation.
      Because it will rarely be possible to look behind the scenes, it is vital for us to make it clear that, once the new regime comes into operation with the exemption possibility always there, the NLVA and others who advise licensees and tenants must explain that they need not agree to an exemption. The presumption in the law must be that they will be covered by that law, although if tenants wish to opt out they should be allowed to do so. In some circumstances, of course, the deal that they are offered will be acceptable, but I hope that they will be much more alert to their rights following the enactment of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and others have expressed the hope that the Minister—who has said that he retains an open mind about some aspects of the Bill—will have an opportunity to reflect further when it goes to another place, and will accept the advice from people in the business that tighter protection is required. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to oppose Third Reading; that would remove some of the protection that
      52
      will be provided in due course, which would be neither in the interests of tenants nor in the general interest. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister, and those who take charge of the Bill in the Lords, will not assume from the probable lack of opposition to its Third Reading that further improvements are not necessary. As the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, we are talking not only about businesses, but about homes and livelihoods: in that regard, licensed tenants are a special category, distinct from others who are protected by the 1954 Act.
      5.54 pm
      Mr. Dixon: I whipped the Bill through its Committee stage, and it was a good Committee stage; constructive arguments were put by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The only hon. Member who did not come up with anything constructive was the Minister. Although I was impressed by the number of adjectives used by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to describe him, I am afraid that none of them could have come from my mouth, for I am thoroughly disappointed by his failure to accept any of our constructive suggestions.
      The idea of the Committee stage, at which amendments were tabled, was to achieve a better and fairer balance, and we attempted to do the same today. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) chaired the Committee, and I have no doubt that he, too, is disappointed. We had gathered from some of the Minister's remarks in Committee that the Government would table appropriate amendments on Report.
      I have received a letter from a Mr. Aitkenhead, the NLVA's north-east councillor. His observations about contracting-out have been echoed today by hon. Members of both sides of the House. Mr. Aitkenhead's first point is that some amendment to the Bill is vital. He also says that, when brewery companies sell public houses to non-brewers, the sitting tenant should be given the first option to purchase, and I agree with that as well. His third point is:
      "Brewery companies should not take houses back for management without agreeing satisfactory terms with the sitting tenant".
      The Minister implied that compensation would be considered, and I hope that an amendment will be tabled in another place, although it may not be entirely acceptable to us.
      Fourthly, Mr. Aitkenhead suggested that,
      "In the event of the death of the tenant, the interests of the surviving spouse"
      should be protected. The Minister has said that the existing legislation provides some protection. Unfortunately, however, licensed tenants do not accept that the protection is there. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) spoke of the fundamental need for the Bill to provide for it. People should not have to refer back to the Hansard report of a debate on 26 February to find out what the Minister said.
      In Committee, it was argued that a certain amount of good will was necessary if tenants were to build up a business for the breweries. I hope that the Minister will show some good will himself, and will table amendments in the other place to deal with some of the useful suggestions that have been made today and in Committee.
      5.58 pm
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I apologise for speaking at such a late stage. As I have a considerable interest in the licensed trade, I came into the Chamber to hear what was being said, and found myself provoked to make a short speech.
      I begin by declaring an interest as a licensed trade tenant. I am fortunate enough to have a lease rather than a short-term tenancy. Therefore, I am in a slightly different category from most of the licensees who are members of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, which I advised for some years. The association is now advised admirably by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). He acts as adviser to the association rather than as its spokesman. We have to bear in mind Burke's definition. The hon. Gentleman does not speak on the association's behalf in this place, but gives it advice and then makes his own judgment about which line to take.
      The debate on the licensed trade and its tenancy arrangements are fundamental to the trade. A licensee is a vulnerable tenant. Should he, for any reason, lose his tenancy, he loses his business and his home. He dispenses alcohol to the public and, therefore, has to exercise with great care a considerable degree of responsibility. There has been discussion for many years about whether licensees should be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or whether statutory backing ought to be given to the code of practice that was drawn up by the Brewers Society. Paragraph 9 of the code of practice would provide them with some security. I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to go down the former track.
      A number of hon. Members have referred to compensation for goodwill, a matter which causes me concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) answered that question adequately. If, for reasons beyond his control, a licensee is forced to relinquish his tenancy, he must be recompensed for the important element of goodwill. It has been suggested that the Minister will think again about the matter and that when the Bill is considered in another place their Lordships may also consider that the Bill needs to be amended.
      I draw the attention of the House to earlier precedents. The other place has been kind to the licensed trade. Hon. Members will recall that when the Licensing Act 1988 was considered in the other place, amendments were tabled on opening hours on Sundays. They were carried, not just because of the force of the arguments in favour of those opening hours but because the Minister was asleep when the House divided. I shall not mention him by name, but he will be known to hon. Members.
      I hope that the sense that has been shown by the other place regarding the licensed trade and the precedents that have been set by earlier legislation will be repeated. Compensation is important to the trade. I hope that that question will be addressed before this welcome measure reaches the statute book.
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) referred to four points that had been raised by the National Licensed Victuallers Association. They have also been raised by local licensed victualler associations. I have been contacted
      54
      both by the NLVA and the Chesterfield and district body. I have also met the Clay Cross licensed victuallers, who made the same points.
      The LVAs believe that contracting-out should not be a condition of granting a new tenancy; that publicans should have the first option to purchase from the brewery; that brewery companies should not take back houses for management without taking into account the goodwill of the business; and that a spouse's rights should be protected. Tenants are in a vulnerable position because of the nature of the business. I intend to refer to additional problems that tenants face.
      The enterprise culture has resulted in changes to the licensed trade and the control of public houses. There have been dramatic changes to the terms on which licensees are granted tenancies. Pressure has also been exerted on those who already have tenancies, even when the tenant is doing quite well and is popular in the community. The services that tenants provide are not entirely commercial. Pubs provide a meeting point where people can congregate. It is a form of working-class culture which draws people together. That cannot readily and easily be quantified in terms of the cash element that seems to dominate all decisions.
      The changes to opening hours have led to problems for licensed victuallers. Brewers have told tenants when they should open. However, tenants wanted greater flexibility so that they could control opening hours. The result is that their families and the few people whom they employ are being exploited.
      A number of tenants will be affected by the poll tax. As they are obliged to live on the licensed premises, those are said to be their sole or main place of residence. That is part of the contract. However, a number of them may have a second home close by. It is a peculiar second home; most people do not have a second home that is only two or three streets away. Tenants make use of their second home and may want to move to it when they retire. It cannot readily be let. However, the community charge provisions mean that poll tax has to be paid both on a three-bedroomed house—the modest accommodation that some tenants may have—and on the licensed premises. Some tenants need to have a second home because of the impermanent nature of the tenancy. It provides a safeguard for them if things go wrong.
      Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Is he aware that at least one local authority has reached the decision, very sensibly in my view, that it is appropriate to levy the poll tax only on the public house and to make no levy in respect of the second home when a tenant is obliged, by the terms of his tenancy or licence, to reside in the public house? I hope that other local authorities will take that sensible decision.
      Mr. Barnes: That is a valuable suggestion. However, local authorities have to ensure that it does not appear to others that a special group has been exempted. The Government ought to take on board my hon. Friend's point. There is still time for them to write into the Bill a provision that would require all local authorities to follow that course. The Government must ensure that special privileges are not thought to have been granted to one particular group. My hon. Friend's suggestion would allow local authorities to get round that problem.

      55
      Many licensed victuallers are faced with problems, just because of the kind of community that they serve. At Clay Cross the growing problem of indebtedness in the local community means that public houses are used more at the weekend and are only sparsely attended in the rest of the week. Care should be taken in developing areas that suffer relative deprivation to retain local provisions. A clean sweep, through a commercial approach, might devastate the viability of existing provisions that might be required as part of a growing community. I hope that the special concerns and difficulties encountered by tenants within such communities will be taken into account in the later stages of the Bill.
      6.10 pm
      Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friends and I have considered carefully whether to vote against the Third Reading. We are particularly disappointed by the Government's failure to recognise the cogency of our amendments on contracting-out. The Minister listened politely to everything that we and many Conservative Members said, but he did not accept any of our amendments. That is sad, because our motive throughout has been to improve a piece of legislation with which we agree in principle.
      I still believe that the Bill has several flaws. However, my disappointment is tempered by the awareness that it will now proceed to another place, where, we hope, older and probably wiser heads than the Minister's will see the merit of at least some of our proposals. Therefore, after due consideration, I have decided to ask my hon. Friends not to vote against the Bill, but to await the outcome of that debate.
      6.11 pm
      Mr. Redwood: I was expecting more from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I thought that he might have some new arguments that would shed light on our debate. What a disappointment it was that there was nothing new in his final speech.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) graced the House with a rather more extensive resume of some very old arguments that we heard in Committee and one or two new ones. The first was the idea that there was the right to buy for any employee in a Government-owned business. Unfortunately, there is no such right to buy, and nor will there be an intention to provide one by Act of Parliament. There are circumstances, such as those of the National Freight Corporation, where it makes sense for the vendor to sell to the employees because it was a good package and was a way of extending the Government's general policy of more employee ownership which has been reflected in a number of tax changes and other measures. However, there is no right in law to buy any business premises or business from its owners, and to insert one into the law for one particular category of business tenant and not the rest would be extremely skewed legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his homework a little better on the National Freight Corporation which, as he rightly hinted, was a great success of the Government's policies which Conservative Members welcomed.
      56
      The hon. Gentleman then revisited the issue of widows' rights and said that the problem of the protection offered by landlord and tenant legislation was that it did not necessarily mean that the spouse would inherit those rights, as that would require the nomination of the tenant before he dies of who takes over the estate. That is a perfectly good security as there may be circumstances in which, for example, the widow did not wish to take over the responsibilities of running the business and the tenant had decided that it made sense to pass the tenancy to the son who would make sensible provision for his mother while taking over the obligations of the tenancy.
      Nor would the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that reduces the protection on offer to the widow cover other relationships within the family—for example, if the publican had a stable relationship with a lady but had not got around to marrying her. He might want to nominate her, and that would not be possible under the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      The legislation presents more appropriate arrangements which allow the tenant to nominate before his death who will inherit that part of his estate. We are creating an important property right which he will pass on to the person of his choice. I cannot accept that it is worthwhile having less protection built into the Bill because of that bogus point.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If there is no clear succession, no disputed will, no clear will or no will, is there any way in which an existing spouse, who is the obvious successor and wants to continue running the business, will be protected or will things remain as uncertain for her under those circumstances?
      Mr. Redwood: I use this opportunity to urge all people who will be passing on that property right to note that they should make sensible arrangements to protect the interests of their spouse. The hon. Gentleman is right that if there is confusion over the estate things will be more difficult. It is not asking very much to say that people should make decent provision in good time for their wives or for other members of their family whom they wish to inherit that right, and it would be common prudence to do so.
      I made my position on compensation clear in my response to an earlier debate.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North spoke about Scotland. He ignored the fact that Scotland has a different brewing and tenancy market from that south of the border. In Scotland, on the latest figures I have available, only 18 per cent. of pubs are brewer-owned, compared with 69 per cent. in England. There is such a big difference because there is a much bigger free trade in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman also recognises that the legislation takes the form of an amendment to an existing piece of legislation to drop an exemption that we consider is no longer right or appropriate. There would be no means by which we could effect the same for Scotland as that would require entirely different legislation that would have to consider the balance of business tenancies across the Scottish economy, because Scotland does not have legislation equivalent to that for England and Wales. There is a different settlement for Scottish regions and that would require looking at afresh. It would be a major task to walk over that ground affecting all business tenancies.

      57
      We have had a reprise of the previous debate about the nature of contracting-out. I can only repeat the assurances and clarification that I gave then about the procedures that will he followed and the reasons why it was thought to be a good thing when it was introduced in 1969 by a Labour Administration and why we feel that it remains true today for business tenancies in general and for licensed tenancies in particular.
      I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) agrees that the Bill represents a step in the right direction for tenants' rights. I also agree with him that, contrary to the suggestion of Opposition Members, there has been no conspiracy. The balance of rights for tenants has not been reached because the brewers have dictated the terms to the Government. It is the result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry and the Government's view that there needs to be improved protection for tenants and that this was the most straightforward and simple way of bringing forward measures to provide protection as quickly as possible. I am grateful that the Committee did not unduly detain the Bill, because it was an essential part of the package that we get the legislation through in good time so that protection can begin to bite as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      The Government have responded to the lobby of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). My hon. Friends, the National Licensed Victuallers Association and I quite agree that tenants need protection quickly and that is why it is going ahead on time.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton—I mean my hon. and learned Friend; how could I be so churlish after what he said about me—asked about goodwill. I can only repeat what I said earlier about the nature of goodwill and the monitoring that the Government and the Office of Fair Trading will undertake in connection with the general legislation for all business tenancies, and the detailed package of proposals affecting the brewing industry, which was regarded as a balanced package extending rights and competition in the industry in the way specified.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) welcomed the good news on widows. I wish that Labour Members would understand that our
      58
      proposal deals with the problem better than amendment No. 3 would have. I hope that I have clarified for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey how tenancies will be subject to protection over a phased time period, for which the starting date must be July 1989 because that was when the policy was announced. The terminal date has been judged to be July 1992 because we do not wish the legislation to be retrospective. There must be a cut-off point by which all the tenancies are covered, and July 1992 was our balanced judgment of how to overcome the twin pulls of not wishing to disrupt agreements retrospectively but wishing to have all the protection in place for all tenancies by the summer of 1992, by when the other measures will have come into full effect. We tried to phase the MMC conclusions to ensure advancing tenancy protection at the same time as a growing relaxation of the ties, which have caused other changes.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked about the turnover of brewery tenancies, which I clarified in an intervention. I repeat that we are interested in monitoring the success of the policy in the ways that I have described.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about compensation, which I covered in a previous statement. I hope that my noble Friend the Minister will not be asleep when these measures are going through the other place. I have been attentive: to the debate because these are serious matters which require the full-time attention of the Minister on duty.
      The hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) dealt with issues far removed from the Bill, with his interest in the community charge and the redevelopment of bad areas. I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's general remarks on the four points made by the NLVA before he arrived.
      The Bill makes a welcome improvement to tenants' rights. That improvement was sought by all hon. Members, and I strongly recommend that they give the Bill a Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Industrial Training
6.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
Mr. Nicholls: The debate takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982. For the engineering board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1·5 per cent. Similarly, the construction board proposals, covering labour-only subcontractors, establish a levy rate of 2 per cent.
Hon. Members will not need reminding that both those sectors are vital to the country's economy. The engineering industry employs nearly 2 million people in 21,600 firms. Its activities are wide ranging, including mechanical engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, vehicle and aircraft manufacture and engineering construction.
The construction industry is almost as large and employs about 1·8 million people, covering activities such as building, civil engineering, electrical contracting, heating and ventilating and plumbing.
The engineering levy proposals are in two parts. The first applies to engineering manufacture, which comprises the majority of the industry, and the second applies to the engineering construction industry, which employs approximately 40,000 workers. I will briefly outline the proposals in both sectors.
For engineering manufacturing establishments, the board proposes a total levy of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll, 0·07 per cent. of which will be non-exemptible. Those rates are the same as last year. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible. Employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for that and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employing 40 workers or fewer will be excluded totally from paying levy. Almost 70 per cent. of firms will therefore be excluded from levy because of their size.
In the engineering construction sector, for off-site employees establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from the levy. That again would mean that almost 70 per cent. of establishments would not pay levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of the levy will be 0·15 per cent. Those rates are also the same as those approved last year.
For site employees, the levy has been increased by 0·38 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of payroll in response to growing skill shortages in this part of the sector. No levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll, which will exclude about 14 per cent. of establishments.
60
The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0·2 per cent. in the on-site sector means that under the Industrial Training Act the board must demonstrate that there is consensus in the industry for the proposals.
Employer organisations representing 60 per cent. of leviable establishments and about 86 per cent. of the work force have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions of the Act.
The engineering industry training board anticipates that the levy proposals I have described will raise some £22 million. It will apply to those firms what fall within the scope of the board between the date the order comes into force and 31 August 1990.
The construction levy proposals are in the same format and at the same rates as those approved by the House last year.
The board estimates that the levy will raise £66·4 million and it is proposed in three parts. First, there will be a per capita levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. The rates will vary according to the type of person being trained and will reflect the training costs for each occupation. The rates are subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of payroll.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour-only subcontractors. This rate has not changed since 1981 and reflects the board's judgment that subcontractors undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers.
Companies covered by those two parts of the levy with payrolls of £15,000 or less are excluded from the payment of levy. Approximately 29 per cent. of firms are excluded by this provision.
The third part is the levy for the brick manufacturing industry. The board proposed a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll, with firms having a payroll of £100,000 or less being excluded.
As with engineering, the construction board is required to demonstrate that there is consensus within the industry for the proposals because the levy exceeds 0·2 per cent. of payroll without an exemption scheme. Support has been gained from employers' organisations representing 60 per cent. of employers liable to pay the levy and from 82 per cent. of employers who pay more than half of the total levy.
Turning to the future, in line with recommendations in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", the EITB has put forward proposals for an independent training organisation representing engineering manufacture and for the retention of statutory arrangements for engineering construction. These proposals were approved in November 1989.
Currently the board is working on the development of a plan and timetable for the management of this transition and it is anticipated that an independent engineering training authority, covering engineering manufacturing, will be fully operational by July 1991.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend assure the House that not only is great care being taken to ensure that the plans for training meet the requirements of the national training qualifications council but that they will be recognised in Europe?
Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Underpinning the arrangements will be the

61
proposition, on which I believe there is a fair amount of consensus, that it is up to employers to train in their sectors because they feel the need of skilled people and because they know how to meet those shortages. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the need to ensure that the standards and qualifications are recognised in Europe.
Our plan means that the levy proposed, for collection in 1990–91, will be the last to be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector.
For engineering construction, it is anticipated that the levy and grant arrangements will secure an adequate supply of skilled workers by rewarding those employers who train. It is expected that the exemption arrangements for this sector's off-site establishments will be replaced by a voluntary code of practice.
In the construction industry, the Government accept that, because of the particular employment patterns—a highly mobile work force and heavy reliance on labour-only subcontracting—statutory arrangements will need to continue, with a thorough review in 1992. In the meantime, a number of sectors in the construction industry training board—principally, electrical contracting, plumbing, heating and ventilating—are developing independent arrangements.
The proposals have received unanimous approval from the respective boards and will assist in sustaining their worthwhile activities within their industries. I commend them to the House.
6.30 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: The Minister's speech had a familiar ring, but I am grateful for the fact that he opened up the debate at the end of his speech by talking about the Government's new ideas for voluntarism within the training boards structure in the years ahead.
The Opposition support the orders. We wish to congratulate the construction industry training board and the engineering industry training board on their work and their commitment to tackle the emerging skills crisis. Although we applaud their past work, the future is ominous. The Government have said that they will let the two boards continue for three years, but the Opposition have no doubt that, after this thorough-going review, they will again be put on a voluntary basis. We believe from our perspective of the skills crisis that that would not be a good idea for the industries or the nation.
Our anxiety is heightened by the fact that, despite the Government's rhetoric over the past decade, they have been involved in a systematic assault on the training infrastructure. The Manpower Services Commission was stripped of its responsibilities and was changed into the Training Commission, which has been emasculated over the past few months. The Skills Training Agency is about to be privatised, again with no real regard for the nation's training needs but again doing much to satisfy the Government's aim to move towards the market model. We have also seen the final attempt to dismantle the training boards structure. In 1981, in a document entitled "Framework for the Future", the Government said that 16 of the 23 training boards should go out of existence. This was followed by a recent decision to axe another five and the decision that two should continue on a statutory basis, with a review promised at the end of three years.
62
The Government's record does not reinforce our confidence that training is safe in their hands. They have not tackled the skills crisis and, even more alarming, they have assaulted what could have been the basis of a training structure in the 1990s.
I should like to dwell on the Government's attempt to have voluntarism or the market model. Many people regard voluntarism as a polite description of the crude market mechanism which is being introduced into the delivery of training. On 8 November 1989, the former Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—said:
"The amendments, which we moved in another place, are designed to enable us to change statutory industrial training boards to voluntary employer-led bodies or to employer-led boards. The change is part of the changes to the existing framework necessary to meet the challenges of the next decade."
In an extraordinary paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"In future, training must help business succeed, become the responsibility of employers, provide standards that are set by industry, allow adults and young people to receive qualifications".
Is that not what the training boards and every training company have been doing for the past decade? Is it not nonsense to suggest that they must now contribute to business success? What has training been about? Is not training about success, profitability, competitiveness and trying to give us an edge, whether in a world market or a European market? The right hon. Gentleman was trying to establish the simple point that, regardless of the crisis of the skills shortage in this country or in the world market, the Government would go down a market road on training. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"That approach is far preferable to one of regulation and compulsion."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c.1121–22.]
I have a simple question for the Government: what evidence sustains the Government through onslaught after onslaught by the Opposition, industrialists and our European competitors and suggests that, by changing the statutory nature of these boards to one of voluntarism, all our training problems will disappear? Is the evidence based in this country? If so, I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response. Is it based on the experience in Europe? It cannot be, because people there are walking in a different direction from the Government.
We see no sense in leaving industrial training entirely to the market. Of course, employers must play an active leading role, but they have not walked away from their responsibilities, as the Government are doing. Is it much more to do with what emanates from No. 10 Downing street and the fact that everything must pay homage to the market model? The Government are in danger of isolating themselves from mainstream opinion on training, but, more important, they are in danger of turning their back on the emerging skills crisis, which has enormous implications for the challenges of 1992 and for our ability to compete in a world in which other countries invest in development and innovation, linked to training in a way about which either the Government have no conception or, if they have, it is not reflected in their actions.
As if that were not bad enough, on 9 November, in a press notice issued by the Department of Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield posed the real threat to the two remaining boards. He said:

63
"In two sectors I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue for the time being, but this does not shape our belief that a voluntary approach offers a better long-term solution to meeting industries' own training needs."
At the end of that paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I am minded to think that they, too, should be moved to an entirely voluntary basis."
That is what he said, after accepting the three-year continuation of the boards' lives and the review which is to take place.
The Government have made up their mind. The two boards are living on borrowed time. We may be one, two or three years from having the 23 training boards completely removed from the training scene, to be replaced by what the Government call voluntarism. In 1987, the Varlaam report, prepared by the Institute of Manpower Studies, stated that the non-statutory training organisations that the Government had set up were not working. No one was surprised. In an editorial on 4 March 1988, the Financial Times stated:
"One immediate area where reform is needed is the sectoral Non-Statutory Training Organisations (NSTOs), which were established by employers after the abolition of most statutory Industrial Training Boards … After six years, the first comprehensive survey of the 102 NSTOs found that half, covering about 2·5 million employees, were 'not effective'."
The main conclusion to emerge from the report was that those organisations needed more Government support. Is that not a curious paradox? Those bodies were set up in the voluntary sector supposedly to undertake the work of the statutory boards, but after a few years in operation the main conclusion of the study was that they needed more Government help.
Mr. Rowe: Is it not a promising feature of the training scene that in a number of companies people are putting in their own time and effort to acquire qualifications that will enable them to earn substantially higher wages? But is it not also the case that in many industries the gap between those who have acquired higher qualifications and those who have not is much too small and that the reason for that is that the trade unions have traditionally pressed for a flattening of the salaries and wages structure? Would it not be a good idea to change that?
Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. I accept that one of the key issues that we face in Britain is not only to increase the volume of skills in every sector but to improve the quality.
My main criticism of the Government is that, although they claim to seek voluntarism, there is nothing in legislation to encourage the individual. To engage the nation in tackling the skills crisis, we need not only the participation of employers but firm leadership from the Government. That combination is replicated in every country in Europe, in the far east and by two of our major competitors—Japan and America. That is the central point that I am trying to stress.
What are our other main criticisms of the Government? First, they seem to oppose any statutory provision. After all, that goes against the grain of their political prejudice, which is well documented.
Secondly, they are against the concept of a levy because they are mindful of what they regard as bureaucracy and because they think that employers should be left to do
64
what they wish, regardless of whether the effect on economic performance is good or bad. That cannot be right.
Thirdly, the Government have spent the past 10 years seeking confrontation over the delivery of training. Why is it that, even on the newly constituted boards in the engineering and construction industries, we must again have a majority of employers? I do not particularly mind a majority of employers, but why have the Government gone out of their way to isolate and marginalise the providers of training, the educationists and the trade unionists? In Europe, the social partnership concept brings together employers and trade unions in a constructive relationship. Yet this Government do not seek partnership even though it is the model used by all our European competitors. Instead, they seek to build in confrontation, which is a luxury that we cannot afford. We cannot measure up to the challenges that we face without partnership, consensus and a degree of unanimity concerning our national objectives.
Let me deal specifically with engineering. Nowhere is our skills crisis more evident than in engineering. We read that, in the last quarter of 1989, we had a 20 per cent. cut in manufacturing investment, a £20 billion trade deficit, 20 per cent. skills shortages being reported repeatedly by the CBI and an interest rate of 15 per cent. We read that 52 per cent. of employees receive no training and 20 per cent. of employers provide no training. What does the Government's voluntarism do to tackle the problems in the engineering sector? If there is a way out of the economic crisis that Britain faces in the 1990s, it is surely to invest in manufacturing and provide it with the best skill training base that we can offer through a partnership between employers and employees. But it seems that the Government simply do not care.
What about small businesses? In a debate a few weeks ago we pointed to the fact that nearly 6 million people are either self-employed or in small businesses. In the newly constituted boards, there is to be a larger exemption and that gives rise to concern about small businesses. Small businesses need assistance because they make an enormous contribution to growth and employment, but some of them cannot afford the finance—especially given the other national problems that I have outlined—to invest in training. What are the Government doing to encourage small businesses and to involve them in a partnership to ensure that their product development, production processes and productivity improve?
The Opposition support the orders, but we believe that their success will be governed by the circumstances in which they are implemented over the next two to three years. The Government have made great play of the improvements in productivity that have taken place in the past decade. It does not take an economic wizard to realise that, if one sheds 2 million to 3 million employees from manufacturing industry, productivity will increase and unit costs are likely to fall. But improvements in unit costs and productivity are starting to level off and the reason is simple: we have shed manpower without investing in the two sectors in which our competitors do well—technology and capital equipment and training. We simply cannot continue to marginalise those who wish to contribute to training. We must now take seriously the fact that we have a major skills crisis. We need partnership, and we cannot have the Government walking away from the problem and calling their neglect a strategy.
6.45 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: This is one of those rare occasions on which it is possible to support the Government but also to speak critically, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has shown. It also affords us the opportunity to examine not merely the question of training but the creation of opportunities for young people to earn a living later in life.
I am delighted that so much of this debate has been about Europe. I have discovered that what happens in Europe is very different from what happens in Britain. In Europe, young people can still begin apprenticeships at 13, 14 and 15, which is not possible in our somewhat hidebound education system. It is time the Government realised that if we are to meet the skill shortages of the future and get young people to enter craft industries we must look again at the division that we have created between education and training. That division does not arise on the continent, and if we are to be on all fours with our competitors on the continent we must examine why they succeed and we fail. One of the reasons is that they do not entertain the nonsensical idea that one must have comprehensive education until 16 and only then begin a craft apprenticeship.
The Europeans stream youngsters at a much earlier age. They give them the educational classification most suited to their needs, and that includes apprenticeship training. In France, youngsters can begin at 13 or 14. We do not regard the French as educational Philistines—on the contrary, we regard them as rather forward-thinking. Youngsters can do a two-year pre-vocational training from 13 to 15 and can then train for their craft at a training centre for apprentices from 15 to 18 years of age. We should be examining that way forward rather than continuing with our rather nonsensical training boards.
I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member to have served on one of the boards. I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member to have been responsible for apprentice training. I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member who has examined youngsters in craft skills. I also spent a great deal of my time in local government dealing with education at all levels. I could see the divide then, and it has been there for a long time—at least for the 28 years to which I refer.
As chairman of an apprentice training scheme, it was my responsibility to sign indentures at the beginning and at the end of training courses. The contribution made by trade unions in that context was nil and employers were not very clever either. The result was that any youngster who lived long enough had his certificate signed; it had nothing to do with whether he had passed an examination or created a piece of work. On the continent one still has to prove that the qualifications have been attained and that one can do the work. I do not believe that the training boards represent the best method of ensuring that—now or in the future. Nor can we leave training entirely to those in industry who are responsible for it today.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central. In the past decade training has become a growth industry. My professional body, the Institute of Personnel Management, established its own institute of training in the past two or three years. Now there are many trainers doing much training, but those worthy people often do not get their hands on the raw material that they have to train until it is too late.
66
We should have a debate on the relationship between education and training. An education Minister should be present when we debate training and vice versa. We should examine what is happening in Europe, Japan and America. We should not be hidebound and say that we cannot reduce the school leaving age. No one is asking us to reduce it overall. Nor is that how it works on the continent. Youngsters in Italy, France, Germany and Holland are under strict controls when they begin their craft training and apprenticeships. They train in all sorts of skills—agriculture, catering and tourism as well as the furniture trade with which I was concerned. From 1992 our furniture trade will be trying to compete with its European competitors although it has a skills training shortage while they have not.
It is all very well to pass these orders and to collect the levy. I used to do that. We spent a great deal of time collecting money and paying it out. We were concerned not so much with training as with the administration of the scheme. That is why I was glad to see the back of the training boards, and I would vote for their abolition again.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what happens on the continent. Employers are excused from national insurance contributions for apprentices. They are not levied or paid, so employers are encouraged to take on apprentices. There is no time in this short debate to develop the argument fully, but I hope that I have sown enough seeds in my hon. Friend's mind for him to take my suggestion away and to come back to the House with a debate on education and training in the light of 1992 and what is happening in the rest of Europe.
6.52 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The questions arising from the debate will not lead any of us to oppose the orders. Nevertheless, I did not hear the Minister explain how the regulations will be governed in the three-year period that the Secretary of State announced before the completion of the review. One order expires in March and the other later this year. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister anticipates, as I do, further orders thereafter.
According to the Government's figures, in the past three years two thirds of all employees received no training. I agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that, unless we give far more serious consideration to our training needs and act on the conclusions which show how inadequate training is, we shall not have an economy adequate for the next century, let alone 1992.
The construction industry training board and the engineering industry training board were singled out for continuation. The Government regard them as having a particular contribution to make to their respective industries, as evidenced by the employers who told them so. The construction industry training board ensured good training in safety practices. The Minister will be aware that safety matters give rise to widespread anxiety. We must ensure that there is adequate training to the best and highest standards of safety practice, so that we continue to reduce the number of fatalities. Sadly, for many years we have had too many of them.
Part of the general plan outlined by the former Secretary of State in his statement in November included increasing remission for small firms from contributing to

67
the levy. Given the growth in the number of people working for small firms, we should not exempt small firms per se from the levy. Such an exemption, together with the exemption from the obligation to apply as high training standards as large firms, would exclude many people from the possibility of training.
The Government have identified the other part of the agenda, not the hidden or voluntary part—that we should give incentives to those who provide the best training. My colleagues and I support the idea of remitting tax for good training. If people produce evidence to show that they have trained well and we provide a tax incentive, that would encompass good training practice across all sectors, not just engineering and construction, and not just large firms. That would encourage people to train.
After the review I hope that the Government will resolve to continue to ensure that industries such as engineering and construction have the best possible training structures in place. Nothing should be done to undermine the good practice, good standards and good achievements of those boards in the past. We need to preserve the highest standards. It would be a great sadness if, because of the dogmatic argument about getting rid of anything that is on a statutory basis, we were to get rid of two bodies that had proved their worth. I hope that the two boards realise that there is general support for them in Parliament and we hope that they will do an ever-improving job, whatever the size of firm.
6.56 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Time is very short, so I shall be brief.
I understand that the construction industry training board is to be reprieved and I am sure that we are all thankful for that. The Minister announced that the engineering industry training board is to be axed. I fear that that is likely to prove to be a mistake. We will rely on employer voluntarism when it was due to the failure of such a policy that the industrial training boards were set up.
There is to be a successor organisation to the engineering industry training board. Are all the activities of the board to be transferred? If not, what will happen to
68
the activities not transferred? What will happen to the board's assets? Are they all to be transferred? If not, what is to happen to them? Who appointed the first governing council of the successor body, or who made the recommendations to the Minister? Why was not even one educationist put on the governing council of the new body? Can the Minister explain the relationship with the training and enterprise councils? Are the non-statutory industry training organisations to set the standards that the TECs will implement?
I see the Minister looking at the clock. I shall take only 60 seconds more. I, too, read the Varlaam report. It states that many voluntary bodies are not effective and that if the Government wish the standard setting issue to be in the forefront of non-statutory training organisations' activities, a great deal more additional support will be necessary. Will that necessary support be forthcoming?
6.58 pm
Mr. Nicholls: Detailed points have been made in this short but useful debate and, clearly, I shall have to write to hon. Members to do justice to their speeches.
I assure the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that I never doubted his commitment to training. Some of his implications about his party's support for training, however, rang hollow. He asks for proof that when the industrial training boards move into the voluntary sector they will be a success. If he considers the present industrial training board system, he must conclude that after 25 years they cannot be said to have been an overwhelming success. It is only right after 25 years that the Government should look at the situation and see how it can be improved. Bearing in mind his personal commitment, it is a bit rich to hear from him that a party which initially took a sceptical view of youth training and vigorously opposed employment training at its outset is in favour of training. However, we may be able to deal with that another day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
7 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Roger King: This Bill has been debated for some time and it was the subject of a carry-over motion at the end of the last Session of Parliament. The Committee discussed and debated it at great length. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee—led by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)—for their diligent work. I attended the Committee on several occasions and enjoyed its work. It investigated at great length the criticisms and petitions presented by members of the public and by organisations with issues to raise with the promoters of the Bill.
The Bill has now been amended, so there is little more for me to say other than that the promoters would like progress to be made because they fervently believe that it is in the best interests of the people of Birmingham. It has received the overwhelming support of the elected representatives of Birmingham and of the majority of hon. Members. It is part of Birmingham's resuscitation and will provide it with a future that will acknowledge its growing importance as an industrial, commercial, financial and tourist centre of the United Kingdom.
7.4 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) cannot be present tonight. This will be the first occasion on which he has not participated in these debates. He is in hospital, and I know that all hon. Members will join me in sincerely wishing him every good health. We hope that everything is all right and that he will be back with us soon. He is not responsible for choosing the dates for the consideration of Bills, but I know that he is with us in spirit. I can almost hear him making interjections as we make our points.
This is the first example of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) supporting Birmingham city council. Usually he misses no opportunity to denigrate and abuse it. He has ably presented the Bill to the House, and even though it is his first example of supporting the council, it so happens that on this occasion I do not agree with him.
I do not support the Bill. This is our first opportunity seriously to examine it. Because of our procedures, every Birmingham hon. Member has been prevented from becoming involved in and studying the details of the operation of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985, and the effect that the Bill will have on it. There have been two brief debates—two and a half hours on Second Reading last April, which was a general debate, and a similar debate on the carry-over motion. The detail of the Bill was scrutinised by four hon. Members who, by the rules of the House, could have nothing to do with Birmingham. That point is not always appreciated by our constituents. Birmingham Members, who allegedly know more about Birmingham—and that is true—than any other hon.
70
Member, have not yet been able to examine the detail of the Bill. It is that part of the procedure that we begin this evening.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I am perplexed by what the hon. Gentleman has said about my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who properly supports a Bill that the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council thinks is in Birmingham's best interest. The hon. Gentleman criticises my hon. Friend because he is supporting one of the few Bills that the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council supports. My hon. Friend, like myself—and I have served for 23 years on the city council—and like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and others of my hon. Friends support what is good for Birmingham. Why should my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield be praised because he has ably presented the Bill but denigrated because he supports something that even the Labour party thinks is for the good of Birmingham? We are all rather perplexed about where we stand. Do we have to criticise the council because it is Labour controlled?
Mr. Rooker: Far from it. The hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is not a party political matter.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It has become one.
Mr. Rooker: It has not become a party political matter. The hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate that it was carried by a majority on the city council on a free vote. It may or may not be carried in this House on a free vote. There is no party Whip to decide on the merits or demerits of any part of the Bill. My hon. Friends take differing views—as do Conservative Members—on the merits or demerits of the Bill. I do not wish to make this into a party political matter, either in the House or on the city council. Perhaps I should not have said what I did about the hon. Member for Northfield, who is the promoters' spokesperson—in the same way that he was the poll tax Minister's bagman in Committee a couple of years ago. He has presented the Bill and carried it through its stages, but, like me, he has not been able to participate in the detailed examination of it because he is a Birmingham Member.
I wish to discuss the Bill that has come from Committee. I shall make only general remarks as I can make detailed remarks when we discuss the amendments.
I had a major surprise when I read the current, amended Bill and compared it with the Bill presented on Second Reading. It is not the same Bill. After being scrutinised by the Committee, and having listened to all the evidence, I can say that there is nothing in the Bill that will toughen up and make work the supposed financial safeguards of the 1985 Act. That is a major omission by the Committee, which was set up to examine the Bill. The Committee may not have seen it as its remit—I see it as mine, as do my hon. Friends—to examine the finances of the road race.
I oppose the Bill because it does nothing about finances, and so effectively it opens up a bottomless financial pit for poll tax payers in Birmingham. That is very important. Finances are the key reason that the House exists with the powers that it does as control of finances can mean the control of policy.
Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care.

71
I was concerned to hear him say that the Bill represents a bottomless pit for our ratepayers on top of the problems with the community charge. Does he feel that the city council will not be able to be careful about expenditure on the road race? What makes him so worried in this regard?
Mr. Rooker: I am worried because of the evidence provided by the first three years' accounts—we do not have the accounts for the fourth year. I do not believe that the council will take care and the evidence is in the accounts, as published. Those accounts, in tandem with the debates in the House in 1985, are the reason for my concern.
The Bill refers to the possibility of holding a grand prix. Birmingham, however, runs not a grand prix road race, but a super prix. No one else runs such a race and the idea was to hold a motor race around the streets which was not a grand prix, but which involved fairly fast cars that made a lot of noise and gave excitement. A grand prix, however, is a specific race designated internationally.
Page 39 of the latest annual report and accounts of the city council for 1988–89, with which we are all provided, refers to the Bill by saying that it amends
"the council's power relating to on-street motor racing providing for additional days which could pave the way for a Formula 1 Grand Prix to be held in Birmingham."
There are several references in the Bill to a potential grand prix. The hon. Member for Northfield, either on Second Reading or in the debate on the carry-over motion, referred to a grand prix. If the city were to obtain or try for a grand prix, as mentioned in the annual report, there is no doubt that we would be talking about millions of pounds. That is what it has cost other cities around the world to host an international grand prix. To stage the British international grand prix in Birmingham could cost £5 million or more.
No one argues that Birmingham would host such a grand prix every year. That would not be acceptable to Goodwood, Brands Hatch or Silverstone which host the grand prix on alternate years. No doubt there would be a bit of a row about those circuits holding the grand prix only once every four years instead of every three years. The cost to Birmingham could run into millions, but there is nothing in the Bill to impose financial controls on the city council, bearing in mind that the Birmingham City Council Act 1985 does not work financially. There is nothing to stop the council from promoting, touting, operating and funding a grand prix.
Mr. Roger King: Such a grand prix is an important matter and, in essence, we want four days of circuit closure to stage such a race. Just about every country would like to host a formula 1 grand prix and many eastern European countries, including Russia, have expressed an interest. I would not quibble with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of a cost of £5 million. I believe that it may well cost more to stage a full formula 1 grand prix, but the benefits from greater sponsorship would be considerable.
I cannot envisage such an opportunity presenting itself to the city council for 10 years, but should that happen it would be subject to much debate within the council chamber. It would be for the local councillors to decide whether they wanted to commit themselves to such an event. The Bill gives them the opportunity to stage such a debate should the opportunity arise. I wholeheartedly
72
endorse the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman as I would not wish to be part and parcel of anything that gave anyone a blank cheque. I trust our local councillors, however, to make the decision.
Mr. Rooker: I did not want to go over the top in my estimate of the cost, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that it could come to more than £5 million, I accept that. The hon. Gentleman must recognise, however, that the Bill is a blank cheque. The only financial control on offer is that contained in section 14 of the 1985 Act, but we know that that is a dead duck. There is no financial control that could be imposed on the council.
If Birmingham were to hold a grand prix the hon. Member for Northfield must accept that the present circuit would be unsuitable. There would not only have to be a great deal of debate at Birmingham city council, but another Bill would have to be introduced in the House to require another circuit to be built. What a waste of parliamentary time. There is no power in the Bill to enable the city council to change the circuit. Such a change would require primary legislation.
Mr. King: I must put the hon. Gentleman right as the Bill includes provision for alterations to the circuit to extend dramatically the pit facilities. In effect, the Bristol road south route, the southern exit of the city, would become the area in which the cars would be serviced and maintained during the race. Our circuit is superior to that of Monaco, Detroit or Los Angeles. Were we to be offered a grand prix, I do not expect that we would have to build a completely new circuit.
Mr. Rooker: We would not be offered a grand prix; we would purchase it. Notwithstanding the changes to the pit and to the circuit as contained in the Bill, it would still be unsuitable for a grand prix. There are no powers in the Bill for the council to make another circuit without primary legislation. That important point must be taken on board.
Ms. Clare Short: It would be truly unbearable for the people of Ladywood if the road race became a grand prix. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for what he said, because, until now, two different stories have been told. In private we have been told that we might get a grand prix, whereas my constituents have been told that there is no chance of that. My constituents would be unable to tolerate a grand prix, but the sponsor of the Bill has notified us of his aspirations to have such a race.
I also want to put it on record that, early on in our consideration of the Bill, we were offered a deal by which some financial constraints would be put in the Bill in exchange for our agreement not to oppose it. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an offer represents an irresponsible attitude? Surely there should be a financial constraint in the Bill whatever the position adopted by the Bill's critics.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend touches on the content of some of the new clauses. I do not want to go into those in detail except to say that we were offered a new clause that put workable financial restrictions on the council—it is admitted that those in the 1985 Act do not work—if we dropped all our other objections to the detailed operation of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), given her constituency interests, was not prepared to do that. The strange thing is that the

73
new clause we were offered did not impose such financial restrictions if a grand prix were held. The new clause that we were offered has now been tabled, word for word, under my name as we want to examine this matter in detail.
Anyone who believes that the Birmingham city centre is all right for a grand prix must take into account that it will not be like the super prix. I shall give three statistics from the 1989 British grand prix. There were 500,000 people over three days, 1,000 helicopter movements, thousands of people camping on a site and 25 acres of hospitality tents. I know that we have tried for hospitality in Birmingham —but 25 acres of hospitality tents?
Mr. Robin Corbett: Even some councillors could not cover that lot.
Mr. Rooker: I suggest that my hon. Friend does not put that on the record.
It is therefore of concern that the promoters have quite deliberately put in the Bill references to a grand prix, but have failed to insert the necessary safeguards, both financial and social, that would be required if a grand prix were achieved.
Mr. Terry Davis: I emphasise once and for all that the new clause offered to my hon. Friend by his hon. Friends was intended to ensure only that the council kept the promise that it made last time with regard to the super prix. It was never intended that there should be any restrictions on the subsidy from poll tax payers to a grand prix.
Mr. Rooker: That is what it was all about and what this debate hinges on when one takes away the detail and the important, but minor, points. It hinges on the fact that it is a bottomless pit—an open cheque, to use the words of the hon. Member for Northfield—for the poll tax payers of Birmingham. Later, I shall compare the effect of the race with other issues.
The Bill was debated on 18 April last year on Second Reading and on the carry-over motion on 13 November. That was the only time in this House in 16 years that I have been shut up by a closure. That was just a quirk. Closures frequently happen and I make no complaint about that. I was on my feet for a few minutes in April at the end of the debate when the hon. Member for Northfield moved the closure. We did not think that the Bill had been debated sufficiently and that it deserved at least two sessions. After all, the equivalent of less than a full parliamentary day would be two three-hour sessions. On 13 November I was on my feet for about five or six minutes when my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath moved the closure. I make no complaint about that. All the procedures were followed to the letter. That is exactly what must happen with the rest of the Bill's passage. It merely means that more time is needed to raise the important issues about which there is widespread concern in the city of Birmingham.
This debate—and this applies to any future debates on the Bill—in no way affects the right or the future of two days motor racing on the streets of Birmingham. That is in the power of the 1985 Act and will not be altered in the sense that it will be done away with by the Bill. It is extended. If the Bill takes another 12 months to reach the statute book, or does not reach the statute book, motor
74
racing can continue for two days on the streets of Birmingham. We are not seeking to go back on that or to knock out the 1985 Act.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the motor racing will continue without any financial restrictions. The racing will not be affected by our debate today or any future debates we might have.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: One purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is adequate practise for the two days of racing already incorporated in the 1985 Act. It is felt essential from many points of view that for driver acclimatisation and safety there should be at least one day for practise on the circuit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an excellent requirement?
Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course, on safety grounds I thoroughly agree. That is why the original Act had, in effect, one day for practise—Sunday—and one for racing —Monday. That was the way in which it was intended to be set up. The point that I am making and want to reinforce is that nothing in today's debate or our demanding the debates to which we are entitled to debate the Bill in any way affects Birmingham's right to operate road races for two days a week.
Mr. Terry Davis: Two days a year.
Mr. Rooker: Two days a year.
Mr. Davis: It would like it for two days a week.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) says that it would like it to be two days a week. I meant for two days a year.
If the 1985 Act, particularly section 14, was working, it would mean that after this year—the fifth year—the right to operate the race would be curtailed. It is clear that a loss has been incurred over a five-year period. In no way will this year's race make up the losses of previous years. Therefore, there will be a cumulative loss over five years. The 1985 Act contained the fail-safe, the seeds to stop it if it went wrong financially, but those controls are not operating. This debate and any future debates will not affect Birmingham's right to the race.
It is the wilful disregard of secton 14—the financial safeguard—that has led to several amendments to the Bill being tabled and my initial regret that the Bill, having come from Committee, does not contain the safeguards. In the statement which they sent to all hon. Members for today's debate, the promoters requested that we should not accept any of the amendments. When those amendments are debated, I have no doubt that we shall have answers from the hon. Member from Northfield about why we should not accept any of them.
I want to concentrate on the Bill so far, and to do so I must concentrate on the operation of the 1985 Act because the two run in tandem. To kick off, I can do no better than use the words of Mr. David Torvell of Pershore road contained in a letter that he sent to hon. Members last week. I do not know to which hon. Members it was sent. It clearly states: "Two: Selected Birmingham MPs." I have heard many things about the Bill, for example, meetings to discuss the Bill in Brighton last October, to which I was not invited. Obviously, meetings for selected Members do not include me, or any of my hon. Friends here today.

75
They may have included my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) my own Member for Parliament, but he has not discussed that with me.
The letter from David Torvell was sent to Birmingham Members last week. It was dated 19 February and touches on the Bill's detail and, more importantly, the way that the Bill has operated in practice. The House should appreciate how the laws it passes operate in practice. I shall be happy to let Conservative Members, if they have not received a copy, have one later. Mr. Torvell raises some points and sets out his position regarding the road race.
He says that the race has been run for four years,
"time enough for teething troubles to have been overcome."
That is a fair and moderate statement. He continues:
"Over that period the Birmingham City Council has repeatedly proved itself unfit to manage the event. Restrictions imposed by Parliament, and undertakings given by the City Council to the Select Committee, are treated by Council officials with open contempt."
That is what Mr. Torvell said with reference to the Committee that considered the Bill early last year. He goes on to make three points regarding the powers to extend the 1985 Act that are implicit in the Bill. I shall give one example. He talks about the increasing dangers and inconvenience to which residents and travellers are exposed. Writing about last year's race, he states:
"Work on the circuit was authorised and advertised to begin not before 7th August".
That was in preparation for the race on 27 and 28 August last year. He continues:
"The Roundabout at Pershore Road/Belgrave Road was
obstructed from 19th July to 28th July for reconstruction of
a soft-crash area. Contractors confirmed that the work was explicitly for the Road Race (confirmed by City Engineers Dept). Contractors' vehicles not in use and not needed for work obstructed the carriageway."
Pershore road, as anyone knows, is a main radial route serving much of south Birmingham and north Worcestershire; it is very much a commuter lane into Birmingham——
Mr. Terry Davis: And from Northfield.
Mr. Rooker: Indeed; the constituents of the hon. Member for Northfield must have suffered severe disruption travelling into the city centre.
To return to the letter:
"At a meeting on 14 September Mr. A. J. Richardson (City Engineers Dept) agreed that the work had been done for the Road Race. He also agreed that traffic had been obstructed. When asked why he had disregarded the time limits laid down by Parliament he laughed and said, 'I do not need to pay attention to those powers. I can do it whenever I like under my other powers.'".
I shall refer to that point several times in my speech because it is crucial.
Mr. Torvell's second point was as follows:
"Following the race held on 27–28 August 1989, the contractors failed (as on all previous occasions) to clear up dangerous and unsightly materials."
He gives a couple of examples—of scaffolding planks left hanging over the edge of the underpass 20ft above fast traffic, of metal posts and fittings and pieces of wood left lying on the highway, and so on. We know what a danger such objects pose to road users and pedestrians.
"A new sewer access (known locally as Prince Edward's Latrine) was left uncovered on public open space beside two primary schools."
These are serious allegations——
Mr. Bevan: Even if Mr. Torvell is correct about the clearing up—and I do not necessarily concede that—does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the amendments that we shall consider this evening would reduce the period of cleaning up from 20 to 10 days, thereby ensuring that the hon. Gentleman's point was dealt with?
Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that crucial point later. I promise that this is not one of those times when an hon. Member says that he will deal with a question before he sits down but never answers it.
Ms. Short: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, as are my constituents, that all the restrictions in the existing legislation—on when the council can erect fences and take them down and on clearing up—have been breached, so how can we have confidence that the new restrictions in this Bill will be honoured?
Mr. Rooker: I cannot answer that question, except to say that we have to bear in mind the experience of the past four years.
Mr. Torvell told me that Mr. Richardson was asked on 14 September what action he had taken on these points. He replied:
"'If, after 16 December I receive reports that contractors have not cleared up, then I may consider adjusting their payments."
When asked why no checks had been made on the dangers to motorists and pedestrians and why no attempt had been made to supervise the contractors, no answer was forthcoming from the city engineer's department. Mr. Torvell goes on to mention entertainment and hospitality, but I do not want to go into that in detail, save to point out that he mentions that the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Evening Mail consistently censored all references to hospitality in readers' letters. Perhaps my hon. Friends will deal with such points when they speak on the amendments.
My last point relates to the council's 11 undertakings to the Select Committee in respect of future races. The undertakings were read out by the hon. Member for Northfield in our November debate. Mr. Richardson makes the point that the council undertook, in a letter from Mr. Tricklebank of the chief executive's department, to implement the undertakings that could be implemented for the 1989 race. In other words, there was no need to wait for the passage of the Bill to implement the undertakings —they are not consequential upon it. Some of them could have been implemented for the 1989 race——
Mr. Terry Davis: I believe that my hon. Friend may have attributed to Mr. Richardson remarks that were made by Mr. Torvell. Mr. Richardson, in the city engineer's department, is alleged to have taken a nonchalant attitude to breaches of undertakings.
I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to Mr. Torvell's point about costs being misattributed. My hon. Friend knows that Mr. Torvell claims that the road race has damaged school playgrounds and buildings. That damage has been made good by the education department from the education budget, and the money does not appear in the accounts of the road race. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my genuine and general concern about the lack of repairs to school buildings in Birmingham. Some schools in my constituency have leaking roofs and

77
we are continually told that the money to undertake these essential repairs is not available—yet the education budget is being robbed in the way I have described.
Mr. Rooker: It appears to be easier to get the super prix circuit resurfaced than to get school playgrounds resurfaced. I hope that I did not misquote Mr. Torvell by calling him Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of damage to playgrounds, but is it not true that the education budget in Birmingham was underspent last year and that the money had not been put to use? Is it not therefore a little amoral to bring in that argument?
Mr. Rooker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that if the education budget has been underspent the money can be chucked into the road race budget——
Mr. Bevan: I am not saying that.
Mr. Rooker: No, but that is what happened—or what Mr. Torvell told us what happened.
Dame Jill Knight: If the road race caused damage that was not put right immediately, that is a serious matter that I would want to take up. The question that the hon. Gentleman dragged into the debate, however, perhaps because he thought it might be a good political point, was that the fabric of schools elsewhere in Birmingham needed attention. I suggest that those are two different issues. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was valid: the fabric fund had not been spent as it should have been. The hon. Gentleman, however, has made a point solely to do with the road race, and it is a serious one. I was interested to hear about it because I have not heard it before.
Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the tone of that intervention. I abhor underspending of budgets as much as I abhor overspending—it upsets the finances. It is just not on to leave schools, some of which do not get painted and some of whose roofs do not get repaired for 20 years, without maintenance. I have made my views on that privately and vocally known to those in a position to do something about the problem. It was not I who raised the issue of school playgrounds; it was Mr. Torvell, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill quoted that part of his letter.
As for the undertakings, Mr. Torvell says:
"In the opinion of local residents not one"
of the 11 undertakings
"was implemented."
That beggars belief. There was a promise of a telephone line for citizens needing information: no line was provided. The normal lines were unmanned. There was a promise that there would be no undue interference with religious worship. Worship at St. Luke's church was disrupted by engine tests within 50 yards beginning two hours early. St. Catherine's was also affected. There was a commitment to the provision of crossing points for people resident within the circuit, to be usable by disabled persons. There was inadequate general provision, and no provision at all for wheelchairs or the elderly. He also makes the point, which I shall come to later, that noise level records are to be made available to the public. Mr. Torvell tells me that no measures were taken and no information was made
78
available, but that is not right because noise measurements were taken in the 1989 race. I do not know why they have not been made available.
I have in my file another letter from, I think, the chief executive's department to another citizen of Birmingham. It makes clear that noise measurements were taken in 1989 but that there was no intention to make them publicly available. Such availability was one of the 11 specific undertakings given to the Committee and repeated to the House by the hon. Member for Northfield. Mr. Torvell can speak for himself, but I am happy to make his letter available to hon. Members. He is a resident of Elmwood court in Pershore road. I shall not give the number of the house.
I should like to refer to another letter from an aggrieved citizen who lives virtually on the circuit. It was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill who was contacted last week by a resident in Wheeley's road, a Mr. Jim Berrow. He recited many points similar to those made by Mr. Torvell. In a letter dated 19 February he makes a specific complaint about advertising hoardings placed in totally unsuitable venues. He says that they are year-round eyesores, the revenues from which are set against the revenues for this weekend. If the billboards were making income for the city for the rest of the year, that would riot mess up the motor race accounts. Mr. Berrow says that the costs are spiralling and, generally speaking, the books are not being balanced other than by artificial accounting.
In my files for last year I have dozens of such letters. I have chosen those two because they are fresh and came into the hands of hon. Members in the last few days. They contain the mature thoughts of people who live on the circuit. In a postscript to his letter Mr. Torvell says that he was
"a strong supporter of the road-race until I saw how the city council mismanage it and wallow in the … perks."
I do not propose to go into the matter of perks because I
do not think that there are many for the road race. I think he was making a point about no financial controls.
There were many representations from businesses. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) smiles. This is an important matter.
Mr. Bevan: I am smiling not because I do not think that the matter is important but because the hon. Gentleman discarded the second of the letter writer's points while totally accepting the first. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was being a little discriminatory in using the letter.
Mr. Rooker: I should be happy at some future date —but certainly not tonight—to discuss the hospitality accounts. I am more than happy to discuss what is available to hon. Members.
Mr. Bevan: Why is one point right and the other one wrong?
Mr. Rooker: I did not say that it was wrong. I said that I would not go into that but simply raised the bald point that was made in the letter.
I shall now deal with the businesses that are affected. There is no doubt that businesses gain, or, to put it more accurately, that some businesses gain. I shall give two brief examples. The first is in a letter that I received last September after last year's race. It was from the manager of the Wharf Beefeater Steak House and Travel Inn in Bridge street. It is a brand new building in the city centre

79
alongside the canal at Gas Street basin. I have not been inside the building but have seen it from a canal boat with my hon. Friends the Members for Erdington and for Hodge Hill. We were doing our bit to clean up the canals along the back streets of Birmingham. At that time I saw the building and thought, "Ah, that is where the letter came from." The letter is dated 2 September and states:
"As a new corner to the City, with an Hotel, Restaurant and Bars in the central area, I looked forward to the prospect of a welcome increase to my business over the Bank Holiday from the Super-Prix. Far from an increase, I rapidly discovered that apart from a few, well established adjacent businesses, my takings actually fell dramatically over the period. On Saturday evening there were licensees coming in looking to see who was doing the trade."
Licensees in Birmingham were on a most peculiar pub crawl, because they were going from licensed premises to licensed premises to see to where the extra trade was going as a result of the super prix. The manager went on to say that there was no way in which the city centre could cope with a super prix.
Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making. For some reason the West Midlands police cone off the whole of the Bradford street area. Anybody who knows Birmingham knows that at weekends that is the best place in the city centre in which to park. One publican there put his tables outside, but because the area was coned off the police said, "Hey you, put the tables back inside." That is not the fault of the city council. Does my hon. Friend realise that West Midlands police dictates the number of officers? The police order about 600 officers and about 10 people a year are arrested for petty offences, such as picking pockets. My hon. Friend mentioned Silverstone, which hold about 500,000 people. Is he aware that just 32 police officers are present at Silverstone? That explains part of the cost.
Mr. Rooker: No one complains that the city council organises the number of police. I back the police on this. After the first or second race—I think that it was the second one which I visited—I wrote to the chief constable and asked him for a full report about the policing and about any problems that had occurred as a result of pubs being open all day. I also asked about pickpockets and so on. I have a letter which gives a clean bill of health and I am quite happy to make it available. I do not remember the date, but I think it is probably 1987. The reason that it is so peaceful is the decision of the police to police it in the way that they do.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is my hon. Friend trying to tell me that there are anything like 600 police officers involved in the Handsworth carnival? I can tell him that there are not.
Mr. Rooker: I do not want to go into detail. The letter from the assistant chief constable is dated 16 September 1987, after the 1987 race. My hon. Friend can read it. I back the police as the appropriate body of trained and experienced personnel to decide how a city centre function such as this should be policed.
There are problems for businesses. Unless a business is in the core area, it has a problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington admits in respect of the pub that he mentioned. In our last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood raised the issue of Aston and Taylor, the newspaper distributors. She was under pressure of time
80
and received much barracking from hon. Members and in the time available justice was not done to the case that Aston and Taylor had made. That business has nothing to do with the super prix, it receives no spin-off, and it is not in that location because of the super prix. It is in purpose-built premises that were constructed about six years ago.
Aston and Taylor is an old company which was established in 1847 or 1848 and has a turnover of several million pounds a year. It is not a bucket shop operation, yet it has been extremely badly treated because of the super prix. There have been discussions about what has happened. I shall raise a couple of points that are relevant to other matters that I have mentioned. The company says that it wanted some changes in the legislation but also raises a bone of contention about the effect of the race. The company says:
"If the provisions of the 1985 Act were adhered to the Company would be able to conduct its business without too much difficulty but it is particularly concerned about the closure of roads for the times and periods set out in the Bill. The City Council have closed roads well outside the time limits of the 1985 Act, as early as 6 am and as late as 8 pm, by using other enactments, e.g. Town Police Clauses Act 1847."
That Act is of the same age as the company concerned. In addition, the city has closed roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In other words, there is other legislation that a body like the city council can use, in addition to the powers given to it by this House in respect of the operation of a road race, which can cause massive dislocation to companies. In this case Aston and Taylor makes it quite clear that
"The company does not derive any benefit from its proximity to the circuit."
Referring to the Select Committee's recommendations, it says:
"Contrary to the Council's evidence, the Company was not approached to give evidence at the Select Committee hearing, nor were they visited for their views to be canvassed."
That is a massive omission on the part of those responsible for canvassing opinion, putting this Bill together and making provision for amendments. It could be seen as a criticism of a Committee of this House. In any case, it is a major criticism by an important company whose business is badly affected. It is an important point because many people feel that there has been bad faith.
My hon. Friends and I have said that the financial restrictions are worthless. Many people might say that that is just a case of Members moaning and looking for a headline. That is not so. However, when people see that they themselves are affected by matters unrelated to the points of substance that we raise they say, "This is not fair. There's bad faith abroad here." That is important. The question of noise levels, which I gave as an example, certainly stands up to the test. A promise that was given to the Select committee, discussed with the residents and repeated to this House by the hon. Member for Northfield, as reported in columns 89 and 90 of the Official Report of 13 November 1989, could have been implemented for the 1989 race, but was not. People say that that is an example of bad faith, but then they say, "Perhaps all these other people making negative points are right. Perhaps it is true that there is a financial loophole, that there are no financial controls, that this could be really bad for the future." If hon. Members want to know why I claim to know that noise measurements were taken last year, I can tell them that I am simply quoting from a letter from the

81
environmental protection unit of the environmental services department. That letter, dated 14 September 1989, says:
"Monitoring was carried out this year purely as a pilot run in anticipation of any future undertaking, and there are no proposals to publish a report at this stage."
The words
"in anticipation of any future undertaking"
suggest that the undertakings are tied to the implementation of this Bill. But that was not the intention. We are not in a bargaining position like that. These were genuine undertakings offered by the city council to ease the problem for local people, yet local people say, "Bad faith."
Section 4 of the 1985 Act is replaced by clause 6 of this Bill. The section is being taken out and rewritten. As clause 6 is the subject of proposed amendments, I shall not go into detail at this stage, except to make a point that is worth putting on record as it will figure in our proceedings later. The section that is being taken out contains words that, in effect, entitle the council
"to provide or arrange for the provision of all such services, facilities and things (including prizes) and do all such other acts as they may think necessary for that purpose."
This has to do with the power to run a road race. Those words are so wide that it is impossible to see why the council persists in requiring an Act of Parliament with some controls on hours and times of day.
That brings me to a question that was put to me earlier by the hon. Member for Yardley. The words that I have just quoted have been thrown back at Birmingham citizens time and again by the city council when people have written in about something they regarded as being wrong. Perhaps the barriers had not been cleared away in time, or they had been erected too soon. "Outside the law," people say. The city council then throws their words back at them and says that, in effect, it can do what it likes. That is what the words in the legislation mean.
In particular, people have questioned the need for work to be carried out weeks, rather than days, in advance. Clause 3 provides the extra time that has been referred to —20 days before and 10 days after. If extra time is what is needed, why do we need words, such as those in clause 6, that give the council power to do anything it wants? I have here a letter to someone who has complained about this time limit. It says:
"However, the Act entitles the council, in making arrangements for the motor race, to do all these things. The council have a similar power to carry out such works as they think necessary or convenient for the purpose … It is this power which is being used."
In other words, this Act is littered with extra powers that make the 20-day and 10-day provisions absolutely meaningless. Why are such provisions necessary when such words are being retained? That is my answer to the hon. Member for Yardley. The council appeared to insist on retaining these gateways so that it might do things at its own convenience, whatever the disruption to the citizens of Birmingham, whatever the rules provided for by the Act. That is what looks like bad faith.
Mr. Bevan: I do not want continually to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must point out that the notes that I have say that the dismantling of equipment should be carried out within 10 days, not 20 days. It is not, as the hon. Member said, an extension of the period; it is a reduction of the period and an extension of the hours from 8 am to 8 pm so that the work may be done more
82
extensively. The trouble that the hon. Member said had been caused by the time taken to remove these obstacles would no longer obtain.
Mr. Rooker: I accept that this is an attempt to meet a problem by changing the hours and the days, but there is no sanction in the event of that not being achieved; and it will not need to be achieved, because the words in the new section 4, which are in clause 6 of this Bill, enable the council to
"provide or arrange for the provision of all such services and facilities and things … and do all such other acts"—
all such other acts—
"as they may think necessary or convenient for that purpose."
Of course, the purpose is the holding of a road race. So it will be possible to go outside those limits. My argument is that either we should put the limits in and mean them, and apply some legislative sanctions if they are not carried out, or we should leave the limits out and take out these words. Why should we leave a gaping gateway that will enable the council to say, "We have put these new limits in. That will shut the MPs up, and will make us look as though we are doing the job properly"? I think that that is unfair, and the citizens who have had those words thrown back at them think that it is unfair.
Mr. Roger King: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about how he interprets the Act of Parliament, and suppose that, taken at face value, it would be interpreted in that way. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, as the subject of an Act of Parliament. this matter has been considered very carefully by the Select Committee. If the city were found to be in hopeless and total breach of these requirements it would be a very serious thing indeed. I do not think that the city would willingly exceed the powers that this House, I hope, will give it.
Mr. Rooker: Yes, but there is nothing that the individual citizen of Birmingham can do about it. No citizen will take the council to court. The district auditor cannot be brought in. There is no redress for the citizen. If those words remain, that gateway, that massive legislation gap, will allow the city to do anything that it deems convenient or necessary for the purposes of the legislation. It will not need to take seriously the days and hours that are provided for. The city engineer's department made it clear to people who complained that it took the action that it did under the powers not of the 1985 Act but of other legislation. That is unfair, because the individual is given no redress.
As to finances, although I am not a lawyer, I know what I was told on the Floor of this House, and I understood it. The Ministers presumed that I understood their meaning. It is now clear that the city council, lawyers and accountants know that I understood what I was told concerning financial restrictions and probity, and in respect of my efforts to ensure that there was no massive financial loophole. They still know that that is my understanding, but they can top it out. They say, "We can get this through Parliament. No one will listen. They are just a few MPs, complaining. It will be OK. We'll roller-coast it through." I do not have to accept that. I find the council guilty and wanting in terms of the financial probity of the whole project.
Ms. Short: Does not my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is being

83
naive, to put it mildly, in suggesting that the council will comply with the new legislation? All our experience is that the limit set in the 1985 Act—with which I believed, naively, the council would comply—has been breached every year.
Mr. Rooker: I accepted the 1985 Act in good faith. I saw no reason to question the undertakings that I received. When I read the Bill, I thought, "That's fine. I wish it well." In fact, that Act has been breached every year. Above all, each year there have been breaches of the financial controls.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman makes certain allegations regarding lack of redress. That aspect must partly be dealt with by clause 19(1), (2), (3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and all thereafter, over nearly two pages. Clause 19(1) provides:
"If any person entitled to an interest in premises suffers damage to or in respect of land or other loss in consequence of the restriction of access to those premises under section 5 (Closing of streets for motor races) of this Act the Council shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to such person compensation in respect of that damage or other loss."
It then recites the circumstances in which compensation is payable to people who have a rightful grievance regarding the strict interpretation and removal of obstacles not being dealt with in regard to the time schedule therein. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and any reasonable person would agree that the Bill contained myriad powers whereby the individual could take action, strictly in accordance with the legislation, if the council did not comply with the terms that the House was asked to agree in respect of the re-timetabling.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. It is a question of how one defines "an interest". People have an interest as businesses.
Mr. Bevan: And they are covered under clause 19(1).
Mr. Rooker: I know that they are, but people also have a wider interest, as ratepayers and as citizens of the city. An individual citizen reading the restrictions in the Bill regarding the removal of barriers may realise that they have not been complied with, even if he lives in postal district B30, which is way outside the area immediately affected, He may not even travel to work through the circular.
Such a person may ask the council by what lawful authority the barriers were erected so long before the race. He would point that, as Parliament did not allow a period longer than 10 days, the Act appeared to have been breached. That is the kind of complaint that concerns me. There is no redress for a citizen making such a complaint, who will only receive a reply reciting all the gateway wording that I have twice put on the record. Nevertheless, such an individual has as much right as anyone else to be satisfied that an Act of Parliament is being complied with, in respect of its generalities, in the same way that any business or domestic ratepayer in the immediate area of the circuit is entitled to compensation if damage is caused to their property.
My next point alludes to the remarks of the hon. Member for Yardley. We are told that the race is good for publicity, as measured by newspaper column inches, minutes of television coverage, and so on.
Ms. Short: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of compensation, may I point out that, although it is to be the same under the new legislation as under the 1985 Act, the Land Compensation Act 1961 has been widely found to be unsuitable for making small local claims. It involves a costly and cumbersome procedure that is not widely understood. Many of my constituents who lost income from their businesses as a consequence of the race examined the possibility of claiming compensation, but found that the expense would be too great. Although it may look as though compensation is available, in practice the process is such that people do not bother, even though they suffer a loss of income.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. I omitted to mention the wider legal costs involved for someone with a wider grievance. It is not a question of reporting the matter for investigation at no cost, through the district auditor, for example. Anyone who complains has quoted back at him other wording from the 1985 Act, so naturally he says to himself, "This is a waste of time. What are the MPs doing? Why did Parliament even get involved? It is all a con." It is totally outwith the resources of most people to take the matter to court.
I return to the question of costs, mentioned by the hon. Member for Yardley. In one of the brief interventions that I was allowed to make before the closure on our previous debate, I made the point that there is also a social cost. We know that someone has put a value on the advantages of the race. That is how the financial fiddle has been worked. I do not mean that the councillors themselves have been involved in any personal financial fiddle, but to me the way the project is run is a fiddle. But that is not a legal term. Not all the true costs are entered on the other side of the account.
I refer, for example, to the social cost of delaying road traffic. In the 13 November debate, I pointed out that the costs of delay, over two or four weeks, as a consequence of the building and dismantling of the circuit was estimated at £140,000 in respect of cars alone, not including lorries. That was based on normal assumptions, conservatively low traffic-flow estimates, and Department of Transport information. To date, my claim has not been rebutted. That £140,000 is an add-on cost. It is a cost to society that cannot really be quantified. Nevertheless, we know that society paid out that sum of money. The delays meant that £140,000 of taxpayers' money disappeared in that way. That amount cannot be specifically quantified, but we know that it was a cost attributable to the Birmingham super prix.
Mr. Roger King: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said about so-called social costs. He has mentioned the figure of £140,000. One accepts that public events—whether a milk race, a walkathon or a variety of things that take place on the public highway—will impinge on other road users. I think that that is agreed. So do roadworks, among other things. However, spread over 20 days and over the number of vehicles using the roads, the cost to the individual road user cannot amount to much more than a few pennies. That does not sound much to me. If one takes into account traffic flows in and out of Birmingham throughout the day spread over 20 days, the cost per individual road user will not be an astronomical sum.
Mr. Rooker: I am talking about the social costs—the costs to society. At the end of the day all those pennies, collected together, are paid for by taxpayers. If the hon. Member for Northfield has not learnt that lesson after all his years of service in this House, I am sorry for him. That enables me to understand why he can complain about some aspects of Labour council policy, which do not relate to this subject, and to support some of the crazy policies of the Government. Does he not make the connection between the crazy policies and the wider costs to society?
Someone has paid the £140,000 worth of social costs. We know that the money has been paid. Otherwise we would not have a road or a bridge building programme, and the Department of Transport would not do any road planning. The point is that those are developed because of measuring the cost, although one keeps the costs as low as possible.
My second to final point—there must be a word for that.
Ms. Short: Penultimate.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is more educated than I am. I shall probably not now make it my penultimate point, as I shall digress. Anyway, in relation to charges and concessions, I am upset about the Bill because I think it is another area where the Committee has not sufficiently considered the 1985 Act. Section 12 covers charges for admissions and concessions. The concessions are covered by the new clauses, and I shall not detail them because we can debate them at some other time.
There are no concessions in the 1985 Act—or rather there is a concession but it is discretionary on the council. It may give concessions of up to 10 per cent. for certain classes of people. It granted them one year but did not do it again. Then the council said that it would give a reduction for advance bookings rather than concessions. However, that is not the concession that we were seeking or were promised in 1985.
We know that attendance at the 1988 race on Sunday was made up of 31 per cent. people from Birmingham, 29 per cent. people from the midlands and 40 per cent. people from the rest of the country. On Monday the figures were 23 per cent. from Birmingham, 29 per cent. from the midlands and 48 per cent. from the rest of the country. One could argue that people in Birmingham had to go to work on Monday, but it was a bank holiday. Essentially the difference between Sunday and Monday was that the ticket price was vastly different and there was an 8 per cent. drop in attendance by Brummie people on Monday compared to Sunday. That is why we are asking for a concession as of right for Birmingham citizens.
We are told that it is difficult. I received a letter on 8 February 1989 from the chairperson of the road race committee which said that proof of residence was a problem to the organisers of the ticket sales. However, that problem has now been solved thanks to the stout work of the hon. Member for Northfield. He was a good bag-carrier and parliamentary private secretary to the poll tax Minister during consideration of the poll tax Bill. If the Government are looking for a scapegoat, I offer them the hon. Member for Northfield.
Proof of residence is no longer a problem with the poll tax. Every citizen who is registered for the tax Birmingham now has a number, and I see no reason why proof of registration for the poll tax cannot be used to get
86
a concession on tickets for the race. I claim that that is justified and required because so few of the public at the road race are Brummies, and on the day that the price goes up fewer Brummies attend. The reason for that must be the price of the tickets, and as long as Birmingham citizens are subsidising the road race out of their poll tax they should get as of right a concession on the ticket price.
Ms. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report of the project co-ordinator to the general purposes committee on 17 January which recommended:
"In the light of representations made by Members of Parliament during discussions on the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill a 'Birmingham discount' be reintroduced. This will be for Monday trackside tickets purchased in advance and show a saving of £1·00 on the normal in advance ticket price. To ease problems of identification they have to be bought in person."
I thought that my hon. Friend might like to know that the pressure that we have put on has produced a result— they plan to reduce the increased ticket price by £1. Tickets are going up by £2 this year.
Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend know the tick et price?
Ms. Short: For Monday trackside tickets, purchased in advance, the price will be £9 plus £2, which is £11, purchased on the day £10 plus £2, purchased in advance for the grandstand, £25—which is going up by £5 to £30 —or £30 plus £5, to £35.
Mr. Rooker: One pound is not much, is it? I do not think that that is enough as a concession. It is not in the Bill, which says that concessions may be granted, but it does not give the right to grant a concession specifically to the citizens of Birmingham. This is one reason why I have tabled a new clause. The Bill lists qualified persons, but it does not include poll tax payers in Birmingham, and that is why that needs to be put into the Bill.
I look forward to seeing an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northfield during the later stages of the Bill.
Mr. Roger King: People know that I have advocated the merits of the community charge quite succinctly. The problem in Birmingham is that the wrong party is levying the charge at the moment. Next May things will be very different and the benefits will be obvious to the people of Birmingham.
When I read the amendment I found the idea of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the community charge attractive. I think that people in Birmingham should be able to come to the motor race with a privileged discount. I think that the wording of the Act is correct as it stands, and I am giving only a personal view, not a view on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, but the hon. Member's idea has some merits and might be worthy of examination in the future.
Mr. Rooker: I look forward to our debates on the amendments which can be changed if there is some problem with the wording. There is nothing to stop the promoters or the hon. Member for Northfield from tabling an amendment to the new clauses.
There is no need to play with words—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) wishes to intervene. No, he would not dare. It appears to be the promoters' intention to continue as before, except for the one issue just mentioned by the hon. Member for

87
Northfield. No financial controls will be exercised, and therefore section 14 of the 1985 Act is a dead duck. As long as that is the case, I shall oppose ratepayers and poll tax payers being asked to subsidise the race, which is why I shall try to stop the new clauses.
As a Member of Parliament representing the greatest number of poll tax payers in any constituency in Birmingham, I cannot do nothing or simply acquiesce to the council's requirements. It is not the fuction of Members of Parliament simply to rubber-stamp the council's requirements. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in our debates and procedures. What is planned in the Bill will be even worse if there is a grand prix, as I mentioned when I began my speech.
We have solid capital achievements in Birmingham—the national exhibition centre, the international convention centre and the forthcoming indoor sports hall. We are even doing more to deploy our fine heritage and to improve culture in the city, and the cost and expense of that is justifiable because it improves the capital assets and the human values of our city. The road race is a plughole down which ratepayers' and poll tax payers' money will be poured unless it is stopped.
Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker: I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to tell me how I can plug that hole with amendments.
Mr. King: I am not going to do that.
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, our city is full of plugholes down which money can be poured. A recent example is the £25 million overspend at the national exhibition centre. That is big money. However we interpret the accounts—and the city council has only gone along with what the auditor has told it to do—not subsidising the motor race would involve, on the most pessimistic estimate, a reduction in the so-called Knowles tax from £406 to £405. That is if we assume that it is being subsidised; I maintain that it is not.
Mr. Rooker: I deplore such outrageous personalisation of the debate. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the city council is under a legal obligation to set a budget. His scandalous remarks highlight what I said at the outset: this is the first known example of his supporting the city council, which in general he denigrates whenever he has the opportunity.
I am not here to debate the poll tax—I would be called to order if I did—but I must take up what the hon. Gentleman said about the national exhibition centre. The centre contributes to Birmingham's rate fund, and will do the same for poll tax payers; thus it constitutes an asset for the city and its people. It is deplorable that the hon. Gentleman should support proposals to privatise it.
I rest my case, and await the opportunity to debate the amendments and new clauses in due course.
8.23 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in expressing sorrow at the absence of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). He would have dearly loved to be with us, and we hope
88
that he will soon be restored to health. The hon. Gentleman claimed that he would be with us in spirit, and doubtless he is—but, I suggest, with Conservative Members rather than with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's dearest wish would be for us to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible and for it to be carried as soon as possible with the largest possible majority, as it was on Second Reading —by, I believe, 145 to 24. Those figures substantiate the tremendous backing for the Bill, not only in the House but on the city council, on which both parties supported it almost to a man—and woman. I suspect that it will always have majority support—in the House, on the council and among the residents of Ladywood.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the opinions of people in Ladywood, so I suggest that he withdraw that remark. I know very much better than he does what they are thinking and saying about the race.
Let us put the hon. Gentleman's cheap jibe aside for a moment, however. He mentioned the votes on Second Reading. Perhaps he would care to give us the party breakdown. Should he not put on record that the 145-strong majority consisted overwhelmingly of Conservative Members, and that the opponents of the Bill were Labour Members? As he probably knows, Birmingham Members who oppose the race have not sought to mobilise support from their colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party: it is the Conservative party organisation that has brought the Bill this far.
Mr. Bevan: That would be extraordinary if it were true, because both parties were represented in the vote on Second Reading. Indeed, the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council requested that the Bill be passed —an example honourably followed by most of the Labour Members who were present at our last debate, as I was.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) tried to suggest that residents of the circuit area and its surroundings do not want the race, but that is entirely unsubstantiated and unproven. The promoter's arguments that local people want the race, however, are substantiated and proven—the many polls that have been carried out have produced an overwhelmingly favourable result. If anyone should withdraw remarks that are without foundation, I suggest that it is the hon. Lady.
Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bevan: Yes, if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue her dubious point.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make me extremely angry. If he claims to know more than I do about the views of people who live near the track in Ladywood, everyone in Birmingham who knows anything about the matter will join me in laughing at him. The residents have carried out their own polls, which have been cited in previous debates and which contradict the claims of the city council. If I remember rightly, in our last debate the hon. Gentleman himself read out the result of such a poll. It showed that—according to the city council's figures, and given the sample of residents who replied to the questions that it asked—nearly half opposed the holding of a four-day event.
Mr. Bevan: Certainly I read out the result of the poll, which showed a clear and substantial majority in favour of

89
the race. Furthermore, the amendments which have been diligently passed—they were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) so I will not repeat them—would considerably benefit the hon. Lady's constituents by giving them additional rights and powers. They would also protect the rights and powers of those who can take action under the compensation laws, and the business people involved. If the hon. Lady tried to resist the Bill's progress, she would ensure that the measures that the amendments would build into it would not be backed, and I am surprised that she should take such an attitude.
I remind the hon. Lady that the formulation of the Bill has taken a long time. It was some 20 years ago that I first voted in its favour in the then city council of Birmingham. We lost it then, but I remember that Sir Richard Knowles —in one of his first speeches on the council—spoke movingly in its support, and I know that he has not changed his mind. He wants the Bill to be passed and to become law. I repeat that the city council, hon. Members and the people of the city of Birmingham want the Bill to be passed.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman was an experienced councillor. I believe that he served for 20 years.
Mr. Bevan: Twenty-one.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman also has his own business. What does he think about the financial probity of section 14 of the 1985 Act? Section 14 was intended to provide a safety net which would not lead to a massive call on city resources, but it is not working—there is a loophole. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view about that? If so, it would help if he shared it with the House.
Mr. Bevan: I was a Member of Parliament, as was the hon. Member for Perry Barr, when the Birmingham City Council (No. 1) Bill was passed. I was satisfied with the provisions that were written into it. However, progress is being impeded. The Select Committee considered a series of amendments which it considered should be incorporated in the Bill. They deal with that aspect of the matter. The amendments deal to my complete satisfaction with whatever protection is necessary.
Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Gentleman has referred to
the amendments which have been made to the Bill. He says that they deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Will he explain which amendment deals with the loophole in section 14 of the 1985 Act which has been exploited? If he cannot find such an amendment—I do not think that he can—will he give us the benefit of his views instead of evading my hon. Friend's question? Why does he condone going back on the assurance given by Sir Reginald Eyre in 1985?
Mr. Bevan: The purpose behind consideration of the amendments is, regrettably, not just to debate them but to delay progress of the Bill. One result for the delay would be that the reforms to which the amendments would lead could not be incorporated in time for this year's race. Unless a tight timetable is followed, it will be impossible to incorporate them in the Bill, with the result that the benefit that would have been gained from them will be lost.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member
90
for Perry Barr. He has raised a separate issue to which we shall return later—which of the amendments will not be available to the city council for this year's race if the Bill is not passed. Many of the amendments made in Committee could have been observed by the city council during last year's race, had it had a mind so to do, but most or all of them were not observed. Before we deal with that point, however, will the hon. Gentleman please answer the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr? How does he defend the breaching of the assurance given by Sir Reginald Eyre on behalf of all the parties on the city council regarding the financial arrangements for the race?
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer—the auditors demanded it. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and his hon. Friends continue to oppose the Bill, the amendments will not be incorporated in the Bill in time for this year's race. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether any of them can be incorporated if the proceedings are delayed unreasonably. I am certain that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention.
Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman intends to follow the line adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and blame the auditors for the city council's failure to observe the assurances that were given, will he deal with a point made in a letter from Price Waterhouse, which the hon. Member for Northfield partially quoted on Second Reading? The auditors said:
"The statement … is not correct."—
that is, that the assurance should be broken and the preamble used to justify the subsidy. One must also take note of what I said on Second Reading—which has not been denied—that I received a message from Price Waterhouse to the effect that
"Price Waterhouse give advice to the city as well as audit the city s they do with all their clients."
The message then said:
"I am pretty certain that I did not suggest … that the preamble of the 1985 Act should be used to justify this credit to the road race account."—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 268.]
The city auditor, apart from saying that he did not instruct the city council, also says that he does not think that he even suggested it.
Mr. Bevan: That was one of the main causes for reconsideration. The Bill has been commented on in detail and the amendments have been incorporated in the Bill.
Reference was made to the socio-economic disbenefit for lorries. The benefits for the citizens of Birmingham are beginning to become clear. The Bill has a great part to play in making the city's name known widely throughout the world. It would encourage substantial numbers of tourists to visit the city. Tourists bring about £1 billion to the west midlands each year. The Bill's provisions would bring more tourists to the city. We need to attract people to Birmingham in the most reasonable way that can be found. Birmingham is fast becoming one of the most attractive cities in Europe. It is well sited and is earning substantial sums of money for the city because people wish to visit it.
It would be wrong to impede the progress of the Bill when it is clear that the vast majority of the people of Birmingham want it to become law. The city council, with all-party support, wants the Bill. Local business wants the

91
race. The media want the race. Both ITV and the BBC will cover the event this year. The opponents of the race and of the Bill are a small minority.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has referred to all those who, he says, wants the Bill. Why, therefore, do the media not pay for it? Both the press and television have a vested interest in the race. It is an event. The media exist to report events and to cream off advertising from them, so why should the poll tax payers of Birmingham fund an event for the media? The hon. Gentleman must see the other side of the argument. I have no interest to declare other than as a Member of Parliament representing people who support and oppose the Bill, but I am determined to ensure that the idea that the poll tax payers should subsidise the road race is a non-starter.
The House provided the power to run the race for five years so long as it did not make a loss. That is the nub of the issue. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), in about four attempts he did not say whether he agreed with that proviso. Does he agree that the race should break even over eight years or the power be lost? By his silence he is saying that the council decides, for ever more and at whatever expense, that a media event can be foisted on the citizens of Birmingham who will have to pay for it.
Mr. Bevan: That is absolute nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I remind him that the Bill was promoted by a council of his own political complexion, with a Labour majority, as was the original Bill. The Labour council decided that an organisation within the city council or promoted as a result of the city council should be responsible for the running and promotion of the Bill. It was not the concept of my party; had it fallen to us to promote it, it might well have been promoted within the private sector, but it is not and I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to impede those who seek to promote the Bill on behalf of the majority within the city but to allow them to get on with the job.
8.41 pm
Ms. Clare Short: The most generous thing that I can say about the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is that he has not attended in detail to the provisions of this Bill, the previous Bill or the matters we are discussing. He denied that it was suggested that the race should take place at whatever expense, yet we know that the framework in the previous Bill to control expense—which has been breached and is a cause of great anger to me and my hon. Friends —has been wiped out in the Bill that we are considering today.
The Bill gives powers to run a four-day event at whatever expense with no control and no constraint whatever. That is the case whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. Oddly, having told us how all shades of public opinion support the race, he went on to say that the Bill is being promoted by a Labour council. It is true that Labour is in control of the city of Birmingham as the people of Birmingham were wise enough to appreciate that they would get better care and support from a Labour council than from any other. However, the Bill has support and dissent from both parties on the city council.
92
The hon. Gentleman should admit that. Recently the leader of the Tory group on the city council has started expressing doubts in the local papers. That is probably because the tide of public opinion is moving well away from the Bill. He is starting to say that perhaps the road race should be reconsidered; perhaps it should not be funded by the council but handed over to a private company. I know that only because it has appeared in local papers on a number of occasions.
The hon. Member for Yardley pretended that that was the position adopted by Conservative members of Birmingham city council throughout. That is simply false; it is a new idea. His colleagues on Birmingham city council were wise enough to pick up the fact that public opinion is rapidly moving against the race and are beginning to think about whether it would be better run by a private company. That is an interesting argument. Had a private company attempted to run the race, it would have closed down long ago as the race cannot even cover its costs let alone make a profit.
The hon. Gentleman used an argument about the race that has been used a number of times—that it gives glory to Birmingham throughout the world. That argument makes me squirm. I am proud of my city. The industrial revolution started in Birmingham and the first factories developed in Factory road in the Ladywood constituency. Certainly the city council has not erected any memorial to those enormous events. The steam engine was adapted for use commercially and in manufacturing and that helped to develop the industrial revolution. All those things happened in Birmingham. Birmingham is the second city of Britain; it has an enormous pride and a history of which we could boast throughout the world.
Yet here we have a two-day race taking place in the middle of the city around a residential area. It is deeply unpopular with the people who live there, it disrupts traffic going in and out of the city for weeks on either side of the race and it cannot cover the costs. The hon. Gentleman thinks so little of our city that he thinks that that would give it any glory—running a two-day race that cannot cover its costs. Most people in Birmingham know it is a joke, but the hon. Gentleman appears not to realise that.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Lady has been associated with Birmingham for much less time than I have. During my entire life which has been spent in Birmingham I have admired and helped my city in whatever way I could. I concede, and I should have thought that the hon. Lady would concede, that the race can make the city attractive in another way, adding to tourism and increasing its income. If she cannot, she has a terrible blind spot.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has made a very grave allegation against me—he has accused me of being younger than he is. I do not know whether I should apologise for the fact that I have been associated with Birmingham for a shorter time than the hon. Gentleman, assuming that the hon. Gentleman was born and grew up in Birmingham.
Mr. Bevan: I was born and bred in Birmingham.
Ms. Short: So was I. The only reason I have been associated with Birmingham for a shorter time than the hon. Gentleman is that I am not quite as old as he is.
Mr. Bevan: That is right; she should be pleased.
Ms. Short: That does not make for a very interesting debate, although we should consider at what point one's contribution to the city might decline with age.
The hon. Gentleman said that ITV and the BBC intend to cover the race this year. That is interesting, because last year there was a real danger that Central was not going to cover the race. It was such a failure it was not thought to be worthwhile and some financial arrangements were made to induce Central to televise the race, such was its fame and glory throughout the world.
The Bill should not be considered further. I was disappointed at the outcome of its consideration in Committee. It is a widely held view that the private Bill procedure in the House needs to be reviewed as it is deeply unsatisfactory. When a public Bill is considered in Committee, we seek to put on the Committee those hon. Members who have spoken on Second Reading and have some knowledge of and interest and expertise in the matters contained in the Bill because the Committee stage is about scrutiny of detail and one wants interested people who bring some expertise to the Committee. On private Bills we require hon. Members who know absolutely nothing about the subject matter or the area concerned to sit on a Committee to consider the Bill in detail. That is an extremely bad procedure which is increasingly widely criticised and is exemplified by the Committee stage of this Bill.
I would not criticise any individual hon. Members who served on that Committee, but if I were to have to consider some affair involving the people of Mansfield, for example, I would consider myself in a poor position to do so as I have no continuing relationship with the people of Mansfield and would not be able to take their views into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) did the best job he could in Committee, but the procedures of the House and the requirement that hon. Members considering private Bills in Committee should have no contact with the area or the subject matter of the Bill mean that inevitably the quality of that consideration will be limited.
I am disappointed with the outcome of the Committee stage. It led to recommendations on how the race would be better run and on how residents would be more sensitively considered, of which I approve. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has accepted those undertakings on behalf of the promoters, but the legislative requirements of the previous Bill have not been complied with. Matters such as the noise of erecting barriers are of enormous importance to local residents. All the rules that were laid down have been breached. People have been kept up all night by horrendous noise days before the race is due to take place.
Given that the legal requirements of the previous Bill were breached, I am sad to say that I do not feel comforted or assured that the undertakings recommended by the Committee will be complied with. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield said in good faith that they will be, but I have no confidence that that will happen.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Through her, I should like to make a point to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). He put on the record the undertakings given by the promoters in the full knowledge that Sir Reginald Eyre did the same on the previous Bill. Is he certain that he is not being used? If Sir Reginald Eyre were able to participate in our
94
proceedings, it would be interesting to see how he would react to the previous undertakings not being complied with. This is a serious matter—it certainly is not something we should take lightly. I hope that the hon. Member for Northfield will not take it lightly, because he will have to live with its consequences.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. If we return to this matter because the city council wants to extend its powers in the future—given its track record, it may wish to do so —the odds are that the hon. Member for Northfield will no longer be a Member of Parliament. He may therefore end up in exactly the same position as Sir Reginald Eyre, who in good faith said, "It is not my wish or the wish of the promoters of the Bill that it should cost the ratepayers of Birmingham a penny." I believed that undertaking and thought that my hon. Friends and I had done a good job in improving the Bill. I am shocked that the undertakings that he gave were meaningless and have been so deeply breached.
Mr. Roger King: The hon. Lady will agree that setting up the super prix, with all the engineering work, public relations and infrastructure required for such an event, requires quite a learning curve, to use modern jargon. The city has done its level best to stage the event with the minimum of inconvenience to the local community. There is no doubt that there has been inconvenience. There has been a race around Monaco for 40 years, and the authorities probably got it right many years ago, but what the city council has done in a short time is creditworthy.
It is accepted that, in the light of experience, some changes are necessary. I spoke with our former colleague, Sir Reginald Eyre, on Thursday evening. He endorsed the necessity and urgency of the race for Birmingham's Heartlands and for the other areas of the city that need redevelopment. He said, "It is true that we have learned from experience." That is why we brought forward the Bill and why the city has given commitments on the conduct of the race. I do not run the motor race or supervise the work force; that is the job of city officers, who are accountable to city councillors and hon. Members. I understand from their communications with me that they intend to use their best endeavours to carry out to the letter the requirements stipulated in the Bill.
Ms. Short: Officials of Birmingham city council are not accountable to hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield gave that undertaking in good faith, but officials will not be accountable to him, unless, when he loses his seat, he stands for election to Birmingham city council and makes them acccountable and pursues any breach of the undertakings.
My hon. Friends and I accept that there is a learning curve, which is why we were keen, when setting the original structure for financial accountability, not to require the race to break even in the first or second year. A new event takes time to get going, which is why we thought that five years would provide sufficient evidence of whether it would work. Experience so far shows that it cannot cover its costs.
I visited my constituents during last year's race and experienced the horrendous noise of it. Despite the council saying that it would tackle the problems of the erection of barriers and the inconvenience to local people, my constituents believe that there has been no improvement,

95
that the race is outrageous and that the council does not bother to listen to local people. Simple things could be done that would lessen the irritation of the race.
The hon. Member for Northfield mentioned Sir Reginald Eyre, whom I see occasionally on trains between London and Birmingham. He is not present to give his views, but he originally said that the race should not cost the ratepayers of Birmingham anything. He did not say, "But they will not mind paying £500,000 a year for so-called advertising." The undertakings that he gave have been breached. The hon. Member for Northfield reported him as saying that the race is essential for the future of Heartlands. I find that an improbable statement for him to make, and when I next see him I shall ask whether he made it.
Mr. Terry Davis: Sir Reginald Eyre's name has been bandied about and was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may like to know that I have discussed the race with Sir Reginald Eyre. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall give testimony contrary to that given by the hon. Member for Northfield.
I intervened on my hon. Friend's factual speech to remind her of two points. First, she rightly said that we did not ask the council to make a profit or to break even within a year or two, but it said that it would do so within three years. My hon. Friends and I wanted to be generous. We said, "You may miss your target by £10, £15, £100 or £500, and we should not want you to be compelled, for such a small amount of money, to stop the road race. Let us make it five years, which will be plenty of time." It said, "Thank you very much. That is very generous, constructive and helpful." We were trying to help the city council. Sir Reginald Eyre at least appreciated that point.
Secondly, my hon. Friend said that the city council and Sir Reginald Eyre stated that there had been an improvement. One other person said that adding clause 14 to the Bill was a big improvement—the hon. Member for Northfield, who said so on local radio.
Ms. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he spoke, I remembered that we started with a three-year break-even point. I remember the fantastic figures announced when the Bill was first suggested—the number of people who would watch the race, the amount of money that would be made—and the suggestions that the race would fund improvements to all the rotten housing stock in which many of my constituents live. It was going to be the most profitable operation that had ever been heard of.
We did not want to be unhelpful, but we were sceptical about some of the leaflets, projections, public relations exercises and hype—which, no doubt, cost a lot of money. We could have tabled an amendment to hold the council to its projections on the profitability of the road race, but we asked only that it cover its costs, and it has not done so. That is a damning indictment of the Bill.
I explained why the Committee proceedings on private Members' Bills were deeply unsatisfactory and why we needed to review the procedures. I said that, although the undertakings recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Bill's promoters were in themselves
96
worthy, I was not confident that they would be complied with, given our experience of the first Bill and the fact that the legal requirements were not met.
The Committee stage was a deep disappointment also because the Committee failed to consider the costs of the race. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will say something about those matters. The disappointment and anger of my colleagues and people in Birmingham go beyond the people of Ladywood, who are annoyed about the disruption to their lives on a personal level. There is concern about the lack of a firm programme of financial control for the race.
Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), under an amendment to the first Bill, the powers to run the race were to lapse if it did not cover its costs in five years. That amendment was welcomed by everyone. Everyone—including the hon. Member for Northfield on radio—said that it showed that the procedures were helpful and good, that it was a better Bill and that they wanted those financial constraints. If it was such a good amendment, why was it not incorporated in the second Bill? Why is there no framework under which the race has to break even and cover its costs or the power to run the race will lapse?
I am sorry to say this, but it must be put on the record. An offer was made to us: "Drop the opposition and we will give you a financial constraint. If you will not agree to shut up, let the Bill proceed and not raise any other points, we will not give you a financial constraint." That is the wrong way to do business. It is a matter not just of the disruption that will be caused to the people living in the area, especially those in Ladywood. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is a plug hole. The fact that it costs too much for the people of Birmingham is of concern to all the people of Birmingham.
The people of Birmingham will soon have to pay far too much in poll tax because of the Government's duplicity in setting a figure that cannot be reached anywhere in the country, except where they make special arrangements—funny places such as Westminster. The Government try to pretend that it is the fault of Birmingham city council that the poll tax has been set at £400, but the same thing is happening throughout the country in many Tory areas where councils cannot meet the Government's poll tax projections.
The Committee stage was a grave disappointment because of its failure to deal with the costs of the road race, the inaccuracy of the accounts and the way in which the intentions behind clause 14 had been undermined. For those reasons alone, the Bill should not be further considered. In responding to the speech of the hon. Member for Yardley, I said that opinion in Birmingham was moving firmly against the race. I have a few cuttings of letters to local newspapers that provide evidence. In a letter written on 15 February—my birthday, as a matter of fact—Mrs. Iris Worsley of Goodge street, Highgate asks:
"Can Sir Richard Knowles tell me and all Birmingham Poll Tax payers what percentage of the £406 per head he intends to waste again on this year's Super Prix?"
It is interesting to note that the sponsor of the Bill failed to answer that question. The people of Birmingham will be

97
interested to hear that answer. The hon. Member for Northfield tells us that it will cost each and every one of them£1, but we shall have to examine the poll tax figure.
A letter appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 13 February 1990 from Mrs. J. I. Holborn of Grosvenor road in Harborne, who is also concerned about the community charge:
"The Super Prix must be abandoned".
That was one of her recommendations for reducing the community charge. Another interesting letter appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 31 January 1990. It was from Dr. B. S. Smith FRCP, consultant physician, and it concerned the threat to the general hospital in Birmingham. Everyone from Birmingham knows that that matter causes great concern and gives rise to intense passion—perhaps even more than the super prix. Dr. Smith wrote to defend Sir James Ackers and felt that much of the criticism had been unfair. Hon. Members may remember the letter. It was extremely unusual to find such a letter among all the letters from Birmingham residents who passionately wanted the hospital to be kept——
Mr. Bevan: It was one of four.
Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Yardley seems to have added up the letters in support of the plans for the general hospital and says that there were four. Although Dr. Smith was out of line with public opinion on the matter of that hospital, he said in his letter:
"There is a certain irony that the City Fathers can organise an event which blocks off the Bristol Road for several days —merely so that a few vehicles can travel round and round in circles at high speed. Yet, the same establishment cannot provide year round convenient and rapid access via the Bristol Road (or some alternative route) to the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth sites."
Clearly Dr. Smith thinks that the road race is a bit of a joke and he suggests that the city fathers might do better to organise transport systems to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I do not know about the hon. Member for Northfield, but I know that most Birmingham Members would disagree with Dr. Smith, and would wish to retain the general hospital, although we would wish it to be refurbished and would be willing to consider parts of it being put to different use.
Mr. Bevan: I must agree with the hon. Lady. I wish —as she obviously does—to see the general hospital retained, as a hospital within the medical orbit of the city of Birmingham.
Ms. Short: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on something.
I was referring to the tide of public opinion and to recent letters in the local press. In the Birmingham Post on Friday 17 November appeared a letter from Ruth M. Naish of Constance road, Birmingham 5. She said that she agreed with my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill and me about the road race and said that she had been angered by the comment made by Reg Hales of Four Oaks, who had apparently said that we should stop our "carping and moaning". That rather elegant phrase was aimed at my hon. Friends and me.
Ruth M. Naish writes of Reg Hales:
"What does he know about it? His consituents live far enough away from the track of the road race to have any conception of the feeling there is against it by those of us who live on my side of the city (Birmingham 5) though of course, all Birmingham residents will be forced to pay for it, directly or indirectly. I can't help wondering how many of the 152
98
MPs who voted for the Super Prix know anyone who lives in South Birmingham, let alone live there themselves. What right do they have to legislate for our lives?"
That is something of an answer to the hon. Member for Northfield who boasted about the number of hon. Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. It is interesting to examine who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. It was quite obvious from the vote that the Government had a formal arrangement to ensure that the Bill was carried—that there was a closure and that there were at least 100 supporters here. For example, a number of Ministers voted and, as I said last time I spoke, the Chief Whip came into the Chamber while the hon. Member for Northfield was on his feet and his speech was abruptly curtailed. It was obvious that informally the Government were organising the vote to pass the road race Bill. Given that that was the case, it is misleading to claim that hon. Members who voted in its favour had listened to the arguments and were persuaded that the race was good for Birmingham, rather than that there was some hackish organisation of the vote for whatever questionable reasons by the Tory leadership.
Mr.Bevan: The hon. Lady should know that it is not just her female perspicacity that enabled her alone to recognise instantly what the Chief Whip was up to. It was obvious to everybody. I was asked to conclude quickly to allow another Labour Member to speak as that was essential. That gesture allowed the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) to speak. Those who voted for the Bill are well aware of the views of the people in the south of Birmingham. I can guarantee that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the race. Reg Hales lives in the very road next to the park through which the RAC rally goes through Sutton Coldfield. We watch it when it is in Sutton park.
Ms. Short: That is extremely interesting, but Ruth M Naish is not talking about the RAC rally. I do not have a view about the RAC rally that goes through Sutton park. I am not aware of its existence. We are not discussing that today. The fact that Reg Hales goes to the RAC rally is neither here nor there.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Lady said that Reg Hales knew nothing about car racing. He has racing next to his road in the local park.
Ms. Short: I am sorry, but that is not what I said. I shall quote again from the letter of Ruth M. Naish because she should not be misrepresented. She said of Reg Hales:
"What does he know about it? His constituents live far enough away from the track of the road race to have any conception of the feeling there is against it by those of us who live on my side of the city (Birmingham 5) though of course, all Birmingham residents will be forced to pay for it, directly or indirectly."
She did not say and I would not dream of saying that Reg Hales knows nothing about road racing. I am well aware that the hon. Member for Northfield is keen on it. That makes his motive for promoting the Bill questionable. It is his hobby. Fine. He enjoys it and spends his time on it. Fine. He is trying to inflict on my constituents this wretched, expensive, disruptive race so that he and his friends can take pleasure at the expense of my constituents. For all I know, Reg Hales may go with the hon. Gentleman to every racing event. That is not in question, but what is in question is that he lives a long way

99
from the track. Ruth M. Naish is saying that it is clear from what he says that Reg Hales has no concept of how the people who live near the track feel about it.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Because of our procedures on these Bills, few hon. Members know anything about the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) criticised the Committee, but at least it visited the area. I could not go on the visit but I went later, walked round the area and formed my opinion. Hon. Members who come from Birmingham understand the area and one or two hon. Members may have been to the road race and formed attitudes from that experience. Otherwise, we are very much in the dark and are acting on the myth that hon. Members have poured over the Committee's report on its detailed investigations. There is something problematic about our procedures. The House should have at least sufficient hon. Members present to consider the points that are raised on behalf of constituents in the area whose daily lives will be affected by the Bill.
Ms. Short: When I criticised the outcome of the Committee stage, and said that I did not think that the Bill should be given time for further consideration, I should have made it clear that it was a criticism not of the individuals concerned, who did the best job that they could, but of the procedures of the House for dealing with private Bills. The requirement that people who have no connection with the area concerned should deal with the Bill is nonsense. The Committee stage and the good work of the individuals concerned is blemished by the broad structures within which they have to work.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Under our present procedures, however conscientious people are, and even though they may miss some procedural tricks, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. We need different procedures to ensure that investigations take place in the Birmingham area and that account is taken of the views expressed.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a mounting feeling among those who organise the business of the House that private Bill procedures are becoming intolerable. We must re-examine those procedures and introduce better organisation.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right. I looked today at the Standing Orders for private business, which are twice the size of the Standing Orders for public business. It is ludicrous that Birmingham Members were prevented from participating in the Committee stage. It is a throwback. Private Bills used to relate only to the building of roads and canals. At that time, hon. Members were up to their necks in financial interests, and they were rightly prevented from participating in the Committee stages. We have no vested interest whatsoever. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has a vested interest—it may not be financial—yet he can sponsor the Bill on behalf of its promoters. That is a paradox in itself.
I will make one further point concerning what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about the Second Reading of the Bill. Let us not beat about the bush. If my memory serves me correctly, you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on
100
18 April. Of course, we do not hear private conversations, but the only reason that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was told to sit down and let me speak for seven minutes was that the occupant of the Chair—I can put myself in his position—had made it clear that he would not accept a closure motion unless an alternative view was put. On reflection, it was stupid of me to speak. The hon. Member for Yardley gave way only so that I could have a few minutes to satisfy the balance of the argument, and then the closure was accepted. The only reason that happened was that the hon. Gentleman had a visit from his Chief Whip.
Ms. Short: It is a strong convention that we never say on the Floor of the House what we have been told in informal discussions with the Chair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was generous when he praised the way that the hon. Member for Northfield had ably promoted the Bill. The hon. Member for Northfield spoke at some length on that occasion and that called into question whether a closure would be granted, because of the unbalance that it caused in the debate. Some smart footwork had to be done. There was a change of mind about whether a closure should be granted by some of the powers that be, and that might be related to the hon. Member for Yardley having his speech foreshortened. I will never forget the way that he virtually fell on the floor when his Chief Whip moved up the stairs in the middle of the Gangway, before he had even heard what the message was. That tells us something about the modern-day Conservative party and the degree of democracy and consultation with which it works. That incident is imprinted on my brain as a little cameo which I will never forget.
I shall refer to recent letters that appeared in the local press about the super prix, which demonstrate a swell of opinion away from that race. The biggest measure of that change is the shift of opinion by the Conservative party and its leadership on the city council. On this matter, unlike so many others, it seems able to read the tide of public opinion. The Government may have had that skill at one time, but they have lost it in recent months.
The Birmingham Evening Mail of Friday 17 November included a letter by Hugh H. Williams of Birmingham 31. He said that he gathered that the super prix was being extended, that he was neither for nor against the event, but that he wanted to make a serious suggestion. He wrote:
"As it is the citizens of this city who underwrite the losses and not Halfords, could we not re-name the event and delete Halfords in the publicity blurb? Why not simply Birmingham Super Prix?"
Mr. Williams knows that it costs money and that the citizens have to pay for it. He does not believe that Halfords should get the credit for the costs to those citizens.
Another letter which appeared on Friday 17 November came from Richard Munro of King's Heath. He said that he was
"tired of reading about the Super Prix"—
he will be even more tired tomorrow I am afraid.
"It is a pity the money spent on this expensive and disruptive frivolity was not invested in improving the city's appalling traffic conditions … I am also irritated"—
I wonder whether the hon. Members for Northfield and for Yardley recognise the name Richard Munro.
Mr. Roger King: Yes.
Ms. Short: Mr. Munro said in his letter:
"I am also irritated by the impression given by Parliamentary reports that Conservatives favour the Super Prix.
I am the secretary of a Ward Conservative Association and I for one disassociate myself from the Super Prix.
Birmingham has other attractions for visitors and residents which do not cause inconvenience to those living near them."
There seems to be a difference of opinion in all parties on the council about this matter. Local opinion is opposed to the race and across the city the tide of public opinion is increasingly moving against it.
When those who are trying to promote the Bill for the city council are irritated by the criticisms of my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill and myself they constantly try to make a distinction between us. They say that they understand why I should be opposed to the race because, by implication, they know that my constituents hate it. They say that they expect me to voice such an opinion, but they find it intolerable that my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill should be against the race. By advancing such an argument it is clear that the powers that be in the city council recognise that the race is deeply unpopular with the people who must live with it. They think that it is okay for me to speak against it because they know that I am the representative of those people. That is an intolerable attitude. If the race is unbearable to those who must live with it, it is not good enough. We should not have road races in residential areas. We should not have races that make it impossible for people to hear themselves think, for elderly people to get in and out to do their shopping or to be visited by their relatives.
People who want to go to the races should attend purpose-built tracks. The hon. Member for Northfield knows better than I where such tracks can be found. I believe that on the grounds of safety, efficiency and disruption, races should take place on such tracks. There is no question but that the existing race causes enormous disruption and noise to the local people.
Mr. Rooker: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said about the almost subliminal attempt to separate the two representatives of the northern, outer-city suburbs from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) who represents the other side of the city centre. It is disingenuous to suggest that the road has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is at one with us about the Bill, but, because of his other duties, he is unable to participate in our debate.
When we started to deploy the financial argument the look of horror on the face of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)—I regret that she has left the Chamber, but this is not an attack on her —was telling. She also has constituents who are involved. There is evidence from some reports that I have read that she has started seriously to question the financial arrangements of the race. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) shaking his head. I could see the hon. Lady's face and he could not. It reflected the horror as the financial effects started to dawn on Conservatives Members who, by and large, with the exception of the two who are in the Chamber, have not studied the matter.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. I should like to make it clear that I think that all decent democrats should seriously take account of the views of the people who live in the area where the race is run. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I oppose the race because our two constituencies are affected by it. Given the political sub-alliances across the Birmingham, it may be a slight surprise that the leader of the Labour group on the city council is on one side of the argument and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook is on the other. It is notable that the Members of Parliament representing the two constituencies in which the race was run are opposed to the race. All good democrats should listen to them and the people who live in those two constituencies and around the road race.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hodge Hill and for Perry Barr are to be congratulated on listening to and caring about the views of people whose lives are disrupted by the road race. Members of Parliament for other areas of the city should have more respect for local people.
Mr. Corbett: I know that my hon. Friend will not want this both ways. A few moments ago she was saying that any of us, as Members of Parliament in the city, have the right to take a view on the road race, whether we and our constituents are near to or a long way from the track. She keeps asserting that the majority of the people in her constituency and, perhaps by implication, in the city go to the road race. Is she also aware that at least one opinion poll showed that the road race enjoys popular support? That does not do away with the objectors, but it shows that the majority of the citizens of Birmingham are in favour of the road race.
Ms. Short: I am aware of the polling and we discussed it earlier today—perhaps my hon. Friend was not here. The result of the last poll was not sent to all of us. However, following a reference to it by the hon. Member for Yardley during, I think, the debate on Second Reading, I wrote to the leader of the city council and obtained copies of the poll results. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington will know that, with all polls, it is possible to construct samples and questions to produce different results so that any one poll is not necessarily absolute evidence of the opinion of people, particularly those living locally who are affected by the race.
Speaking from memory, the last poll that I saw. and which was referred to in the House, showed that nearly half of those questioned thought that the four-day event should not be supported. Therefore, the polling evidence available—it is difficult because we do not have it in front of us—shows that there is declining support for the race among local people.
Of course, it is the right of hon. Members to take a view on the road race. Just as it is my right to oppose it, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has a right to support it. I would not question that for a moment. However, I was trying to deal with the suggestion that has been made repeatedly that it is reasonable and democratic for me to oppose it because its promoters realise that it is deeply unpopular among the people who live around the track, but it is not all right for other Birmingham Members to oppose it because they do not represent the people who are directly affected by it. That seems to be a deeply undemocratic argument. Those

103
representing people who do not live close to an event should respect the views of those who live close to it. That is an important part of the democratic process.
Another point made in one of the letters that I read out earlier is that the financial cost is a matter for every single ratepayer, poll tax payer and citizen of Birmingham. It is the duty of every Member of Parliament in Birmingham to take the finances seriously. We all have exactly the same interest in that, regardless of the area that we represent.
Next I turn to the unpopularity of the race among local residents because of the disruption that it causes. I went to the race for the first time last year. I did not partake of the hospitality, nor did I sit in the grandstand, but I visited a number of my constituents who live in the area. The noise was unbearable. People were going around with machines to measure the noise—on behalf of the city council and on behalf of informal groups. It is strange that the findings of that monitoring have not been made available to us. Even with the windows closed the noise exceeded recommended industrial safety levels. It was very intense, if only for short periods.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When my hon. Friend visited constituents in the area of the track, was she able, as a Member of Parliament, to go straight through, or did she require a pass to get into the central area—as the people who live in that area required?
Ms. Short: I needed a pass; the whole area is fenced off, like a prison camp. One cannot enter without a pass. We were all sent letters asking whether we wanted to go and whether we wanted passes to get into the road races. I received a pass because I had promised months before to visit my constituents.
One of the constituents whom I visited that day had been taken ill the day before and his doctor had not been allowed in because he did not have an appropriate pass. Supposedly, proper arrangements had been made, but the doctor had been turned away and had to return later. By the time my constituent got his prescription he was quite ill.
These are serious issues. In another of the houses that I visited that day there lived a young man whose job it was to be on call to go and repair cars, but he was not allowed to bring his car in and out of the area. Residents are supposed to be able to drive into certain roads, and he had to choose whether to park his car outside the fence where it was in danger of being vandalised by strangers who, perhaps, had had too much to drink, or to keep it inside and face the consequent difficulties when he was called out. These inconveniences do not amount to much singly, but they become exasperating for residents in the circumstances that I have described.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The point that my hon. Friend is making is well illustrated by the fact that the elected representative of the people of the area could not get in without a pass, which seems monstrous.
Ms. Short: I do not tend to stand on ceremony—as long as I could get in, that was all right by me. It was interesting, however, that the people staffing the gates did not know the local residents. We were promised, with the original Bill, that large numbers of jobs would be provided for local
104
people, but the people employed on the gates knew no one. I do not know who they were, but they were certainly not locals.
The present two-day race causes terrible noise and disruption; a four-day event would be unthinkable. That is another major reason why the Bill should not be further considered. The case for a four-day event is being argued with local people with a certain duplicity on the subject of whether it is likely to turn into a grand prix. A four-day event would be bad enough but a grand prix would be horrendous. There would be a great deal of noise. It is a different formula and the highest formula race is incredibly noisy and hurts the ears. Advice is given now that children should have their ears protected and a grand prix would be much more noisy than previous races.
When local people object to the potential noise and disruption of a four-day event they are told that there is no chance of a grand prix. It is said that, although it has been talked about, the track is not big enough and neither are the pits, which is what I think they are called. On the other side of the argument people try to project the level of fame and glory and the amount of tourist revenue that such a race would bring to Birmingham. In other locations the argument is advanced, as it has been advanced in the debate by the hon. Member for Northfield, that the aim is to get the grand prix.
The Bill should cease to be considered right now, because a grand prix being staged along the end of people's gardens close to their windows is an intolerable concept. No one who has been in those houses and has listened to the noise would dare to vote for it.
Mr. Rooker: I am open to challenge about what I said earlier. This circuit would be of no use for a grand prix. For a start people could not be accommodated around the circuit. If every available area was blocked off for spectators, all the people who wanted to see the race could still not be accommodated because it is not possible to erect grandstands on most of the circuit. It is beyond reasonableness to use this circuit for a serious grand prix on the world scale. All the other city grand prix circuits are not like the one in Birmingham. The grand prix in Adelaide, Australia and in Monaco have a lie of the land, access to the circuit and spectator accommodation utterly different from the circuit presently used in inner-city Birmingham. Such a race would require a totally different circuit. Conservative Members may shake their heads, but they should go to the circuit and have a look to see where spectators could be accommodated.
Mr. Bevan rose——
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on me because I am intervening on my hon. Friend.
Ms. Short: I shall reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and then I shall be happy to allow the hon. Member for Yardley to make his point.
I am not an expert on motor racing. I am happy to say that I have not wasted many hours of my life attending races. I went once in my youth and thought how silly it was to stand by the side of the road and see some cars go by very fast and then wait for a few minutes to see it all happen again. It seems a silly activity to me. However, I am happy that people such as the hon. Member for Northfield should engage in such a silly activity. If it gives him pleasure good luck to him, provided he pays for it

105
himself and does not require my constituents, who will have great difficulty in paying the poll tax, to pay for his hobbies and provided it does not disrupt people who do not want to be there. That is what is so unbearable about running the race around the houses of people who do not choose to be there. It is all right if the hon. Member for Northfields pays for his ticket and spends his Sunday afternoon following this rather silly hobby. That is fair enough, but it is not fair to impose it on my constituents.
I can claim some expertise. Last year when I was there there was a motor sport television team making some kind of programme about the race. A man interviewed me, but he did not know much about road racing, although the people who run such programmes generally do. He said that he thought it was extremely exciting because of the noise and because it was on ordinary streets. That was the good part. However, he said that the circuit was rotten because there was so few points from which one could see much of the race. He said, "There is no chance of it going much further. The excitement comes from having a race on ordinary streets and the noise and the smell." Apparently those are the things that turn on the aficionados, but he said that this was a rotten, useless circuit because it had so few vantage points. I cannot claim to make that point with authority but this expert who makes television programmes about such matters told me that.
Mr. Bevan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I am glad that she has reached a breach in the sentence. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned Monaco. That is an extraordinarily restricted circuit. It is much more restricted than Birmingham, the race is on much narrower streets and there is much less capability of erecting stands. So let us get it right: if' permission were granted, the present circuit could well meet any requirements that might be imposed.
The hon. Lady is quite wrong in attributing to herself superiority of philosophical definition in suggesting that everybody who follows motor racing is childish. Millions of people in this country follow motor racing, and in the city of Birmingham there are many, many thousands who want to follow it. Indeed, they are in the majority. It is just as wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest otherwise as it was for the hon. Member for Perry Barr to suggest that there was a look of horror on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) when she listened to the financial horrors that he said were unfolding. My hon. Friend's expression was just as seraphic as it had been during "Songs of Praise" yesterday.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman suggests that, somehow, I am insulting people who enjoy road racing. Actually, I am very pleased that people are different. People engage in all sorts of extraordinary hobbies. Not one of us engages in all of them, and some of us do not understand why the activities in which some people engage on a Sunday afternoon could possibly be enjoyable. But some people enjoy watching road racing. I think that it is extraordinary that people should want to spend their time doing that. I tried it once. I saw cars going by very fast, then it was very boring for a moment, and then the cars went by very fast again. To me, road racing is not interesting or enjoyable, but the hon. Member for Northfield can enjoy it if he wishes. Of course he can, but he should pay for it himself, and he should not disrupt people who do not want to have road racing in their area.
Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend saying that, even if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—the amendment on the financial side—were acceptable, even if the money aspect were put right and were acceptable to the city council, she still would not want any form of racing, any day of the year, anywhere near her constituency?
Ms. Short: No. I have made it clear previously that I think that there is a majority for a two-day event. This is the problem. Some of my constituents are passionately hostile to the whole thing and wish that racing had never been held in Birmingham. Some people have always been opposed to it, whereas others, having experienced it, have become deeply opposed to it. A poll of local residents has shown that there is a majority in favour of a two-day event, but overwhelming opposition to a four-day event.
I am most anxious that this Bill should be defeated. I say to the hon. Member for Yardley that it is completely honourable to use the procedures of the House, including the possibility of having the Bill amended. If that causes the Bill to fall, I shall be overjoyed. That is my intention. It would be in the interests of the people of Birmingham, including my constituents. If it does fall, there will still be legal power for the running of a two-day race in Birmingham. In my opinion, there should be financial constraints in respect of the two-day race. That would be the best framework for road racing in Birmingham—if it is to be held there at all.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The thing that is particularly obnoxious about the suggestion that there should be a grand prix, lasting four days, instead of a super prix is that it would be a moveable feast. It could be held at any time, including holiday periods. In the case of a two-day or three-day event during a holiday period, people, at least theoretically, have an opportunity to get away from the area. However, during a working period, and especially when the event includes a Friday and a Monday, they have no opportunity to get away, so their lives, as well as the commercial life of the area, with which many of them are associated, are disrupted completely.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a point on which I have not yet touched, but it is one of great importance. Why power has to be taken to organise racing on any occasion, not including a bank holiday, [really do not know. The disruption implications are dreadful.
I am most anxious to bring my remarks to an end. tabled an amendment to the effect that the whole event should be moved to Northfield. I am sorry that the amendment was not selected. I should love to know whether the hon. Member for Northfield would have supported it and whether, if he had, it would have been popular with his constituents. If Birmingham people who live elsewhere are in favour of it but would not want it in their own backyards, there is something wrong with it.
Mr. Roger King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to give my views on that matter. I would be quite agreeable to the same procedure as was adopted by the city council—a survey of residents around the proposed circuit to ascertain whether they would welcome the race.
If, as happened when the hon. Lady undertook her original canvass, a substantial number of constituents

107
supported the event, then I would have no objection—bar one. Try as I might, I could not evolve a road system that is as attractive and offers the hotel accommodation that the existing road race circuit offers, which brings dynamic vibration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I mean, vibrancy, to the city centre. It is not essential to Birmingham Heartlands—I misquoted Sir Reginald Eyre —but it is beneficial to them and to the city generally.
As to the cost of moving the race, I am at one with the hon. Lady in not wanting another £1 million or £2 million spent on moving the circuit to Northfield. I agree with the hon. Lady that that would be a scandalous waste of everyone's money.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman gives a very clear answer. I understood him to say that he would be in favour of moving the race if a majority were in favour—and that from an hon. Member with a marginal seat. Nevertheless, I am anxious to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington of my view. The power to run the two-day event will remain, whatever happens to the Bill. That event has been run for four years, and it has been found that the city is unable to organise it in such a way that its costs were covered. The city has also been unable to organise the race so that it complies with the basic framework of the law. It is laughable to suggest that the House should entertain a Bill to extend the city's powers when it has failed so abysmally in its efforts to run a two-day event.
The Bill should not pass, and I hope that it will not. I hope that we shall return to it again and again, until time runs out. Birmingham can then continue with a two-day event—and when it has proved that it can run that properly, it is entitled to ask for something more. However, my view is that the disruption that a four-day event would cause would be too high a price to pay for the people of Ladywood. A four-day event should be run on a purpose-built track somewhere else in Birmingham, if the city wants to be associated with such an event.
9.46 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful if at this point I intervene briefly to restate the Government's view. I say "briefly" because I know that a number of hon. Members still hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As the House knows, the Government traditionally stand neutral in relation to private Bills where no major matter of principle is involved. The Bill before the House is no exception, as was made clear to the House by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he intervened on Second Reading last year. The Bill raises issues which are essentially of local concern and there is no case for the Government to intervene. It is for the promoter to persuade the House that the powers sought are justified. The Unopposed Bills Committee has allowed the measure to proceed with amendments in the usual way, so I hope that the House will allow the Bill to progress.
9.47 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister's statement was very disappointing. He quoted the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he
108
intervened, as the Minister then responsible, in the Second Reading debate in April 1989. If the Minister's officials had given him the benefit of their research and knowledge, he would have known that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made a very different statement during the passage of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985. The Minister smiles, so I assume that he is aware of her words but thought that discretion was the better part of valour and did not want to refer to them. The right hon. Member for Wallasey made it clear on that occasion, not that the Government were neutral, but that they expected the city council to run the road race on a self-financing basis. That has not happened, and that is at the heart of the objections to the Bill by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
I join others of my hon. Friends in regretting the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is to undergo an operation tomorrow, having been admitted to hospital this evening. We all look forward to his quick recovery and to his presence at any future debates on this issue.
I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I was amused to learn that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) can apparently see into my right hon. Friend's mind and knows that he would, if he were here, agree with the hon. Member. I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend, although I have known him for many years, and can claim to know him rather better than the hon. Member for Yardley.
I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, in his inimitable way, supported the Bill on Second Reading, but I believe and suggest to the House that a good reason for not considering the Bill any further would be to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath to be present amongst us. I believe that if he could listen to the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) he would have good reason to reconsider his support for the Bill on that occasion—[Interruption.] Time is passing, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has been notable for his absence throughout most of our proceedings this evening, so I think that he owes it to himself to listen to our arguments, especially since[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman is always absent; that is why we always make that point.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was quoted in the Birmingham newspapers last weekend as saying that he did not understand the objections of the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I shall give the hon. Member for Northfield a further opportunity to understand our objections.
The hon. Member for Yardley claims that the reason why he gave way and why his speech was suddenly deflated during the Second Reading debate in April 1989 was that he was anxious to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and to understand our objections. I regret that within minutes the hon. Member for Yardley was voting on the closure to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr from expressing his objections and explaining why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
There are two basic grounds for objecting to the Bill and for arguing that it should not be given further consideration. The first concerns the effect on the residents

109
who live in the area affected by the race, such as the constituents represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. The second is the financial argument.
Mr. Bevan: It is true that I wanted to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but as soon as I heard him I had had enough and that is why I sat down.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley always has a short attention span and has often heard enough very quickly. However, let me return to the objections to the Bill.
I must be fair to the city council, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood would at least join me in this tribute to it. It did not seek to prevent her constituents from petitioning, from objecting to the Bill, or from appearing before the Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) served—to enable the Committee to hear the reasons for her constituents' passionate objections to the idea that the event should be extended to four days and to the idea of a grand prix. I regret that some other bodies such as the West Midlands passenger transport authority do not take the same attitude and are objecting to the locus standi of residents in similar situations on other Bills, which I shall not discuss this evening because time is pressing, but we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss that on other private Bills during the Session.
Ms. Short: Some of my constituents did petition, but there is cost and difficulty involved for people who wish to petition. The city council tried to prevent someone from petitioning because he was in its employment, and it led to an important matter of privilege coming before the House, so I am afraid—and I am sorry to detract from the compliment that my hon. Friend is paying—that the city council tried to limit the power of people to petition against the Bill.
Mr. Davis: I stand corrected by my hon. Friend. I had forgotten that regrettable incident. Of course, the Select Committee found that the city council was in breach of privilege. However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is interesting that as soon as a complaint was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of that member of staff the hon. Member for Northfield, with his knowledge and insight into what goes on in the Labour rooms of the city council, was able to say categorically to the press that it was all nonsense and there was no breach of privilege. He knew; my hon. Friends did not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr did not know, but the hon. Member for Northfield has a special line to the people who support the Bill in the city council. The hon. Member for Northfield was able to say categorically that there was no breach of parliamentary privilege, and I have yet to see him withdraw that statement, as I have yet to hear him explain the position on a number of the factors which affect the Bill.
The hon. Member for Yardley—I cannot leave him alone—said—[Interruption.] I shall leave the hon. Member for Selly Oak alone because he has not been here long enough, but the hon. Member for Yardley has sat patiently throughout the debate, and he said that the amendments to the Bill accepted in Committee protected the residents of Ladywood in every possible way. Of course, they do not.
110
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has made it clear that she is not satisfied, as have many of her constituents. They are not sufficiently protected: certainly they are not protected in every possible way. If they were, my hon. Friend would not have been able to table so many amendments. One reason why we should not proceed with the Bill is to allow the city council to devote adequate thought to the amendments, no doubt with the advice of the hon. Members for Yardley and for Northfield.
I support the protestations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already quoted from a letter that I received from a gentleman living in Wheeley's road, Edgbaston. I am not sure whether Wheeley's road is in my hon. Friend's constituency; perhaps it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who said earlier that she would take up the complaints of one of our correspondents. I hope that she will take up this complaint as well: she may have received it already.
Dame Jill Knight: What I said was that this was the first that I had heard of the matter. No complaint had been made to me about the road race damaging the fabric of school buildings. Had I received such a complaint, I would have been more than ready to take it up.
Mr. Davis: I thought that the hon. Lady went further, and said that she had received no complaints about contractors having failed to clear away dangerous objects —or is she saying that she has received such complaints? I do not wish to misquote her.
Dame Jill Knight: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes, he does.
Dame Jill Knight: No, I do not believe that.
I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) exactly what I have just repeated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular incident. I listened carefully to what was said, and I have since checked, but I have received no letter about such matters in my capacity as Member of Parliament for that area.
Mr. Davis: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although I am not sure whether she means that she has had no letters of complaint at all, or no letters from the gentleman whom I mentioned.
Although I was not sure whose constituent the author of the letter was, I feel free to quote from it. It states:
"We live at the City end of Wheeley's Road and hence, are on the fringes of the race area, but like many others are subjected to the full environmental factors and inconvenience which this event brings and were never asked for our opinion, despite the City publicity on polls and soundings among local residents. Road delays spread over many weeks, green areas turned into dirty dumping grounds for concrete and fencing, noise and concern about domestic security at a time when there are many visitors to the area are some of the more obvious drawbacks. The noise and threatening nature of helicopters belonging to the police and television companies over a residential district, are a separate, but equally distressing saga."
I suspect that the same complaint will be made by many people who live in that part of Edgbaston—and, indeed. by many people who live in the relevant parts of Ladywood and Sparkbrook. Hon. Members should note

111
that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is also opposed to the Bill in principle.
Although I accept that the hon. Member for Northfield has given his undertakings in good faith, there was nothing to stop the city council from observing many of those undertakings last year. It did not do so, and I question whether it wants to. Our experience of the undertakings given by the council—undertakings given in the House, and enshrined in an amendment drafted by the council —does not encourage us to accept its undertakings in future.
Mr. Roger King rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 24.

Division No. 97]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knapman, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Butterfill, John

Knox, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lightbown, David

Chapman, Sydney

Lilley, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Lord, Michael

Clelland, David

Maclean, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Corbett, Robin

McWilliam, John

Crowther, Stan

Mans, Keith

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Michael, Alun

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Dorrell, Stephen

Moss, Malcolm

Durant, Tony

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Fallon, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Paice, James

Forman, Nigel

Patnick, Irvine

Forth, Eric

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Fraser, John

Rhodes James, Robert

French, Douglas

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Gale, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Gill, Christopher

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Gregory, Conal

Stevens, Lewis

Ground, Patrick

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Thorne, Neil

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Wallace, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Wells, Bowen

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Irvine, Michael

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan and

Janman, Tim

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark

Kilfedder, James

NOES

Ashby, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashton, Joe

Blunkett, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dalyell, Tam

112

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Pike, Peter L.

Dixon, Don

Rooker, Jeff

Doran, Frank

Short, Clare

Flynn, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Haynes, Frank

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Janner, Greville

Spearing, Nigel

Leadbitter, Ted

Tredinnick, David

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes

Meale, Alan

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 March.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
    That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

  GENERALISED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES (POLAND, HUNGARY AND KOREA)
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9127/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 14th February 1990 and 9865/89 relating to the Generalised System of Preferences support for Poland and Hungary 9762/89 relating to levies on agricultural products from Poland and Hungary, 10318/87 and 4406/88 relating to the Generalised System of Preferences for South Korea; and supports the Government's agreement to the extension of the European Community's Generalised System of Preferences to Poland and Hungary.—[Mr. Dorrell]
  Question agreed to.

Midlands Forest
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
10.11 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I am delighted to have the opportunity to place before the House the Countryside Commission's proposal for a new national forest in the midlands and to say how much Leicestershire Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, believe that Leicestershire is the right place for the forest. This is one of the many occasions, which are seldom recognised, when Leicestershire Members of Parliament work and campaign together and I hope that we shall achieve results together.
I wish to say how much my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) regrets that he cannot be present. He has asked me to say how much he supports the campaign and I know that he does so because he is a tremendous worker for his constituents. The placing of the forest in Leicestershire is important to us all.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), in whose constituency the bulk of the forest will be, is present. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he will say that he supports the proposal, as does the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) with whom I have campaigned on many issues affecting our constituents which, like this one, were above party politics.
Unfortunately, because of his reprehensible office, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is unable to speak. On this matter, at least it would have been a pleasure to hear him. He indicates, by his smile and posture, that he is on our side.
The Countryside Commission has produced a consultation document entitled, "A new National Forest for the Midlands." It is a great concept for a massive new national forest. The Countryside Commission has suggested five sites. It says that the purpose of the forest is to provide a proper framework of tree planting around which housing and farming and recreation can be developed, to be a major new recreational resource, to offer a way of using farmland that has been marginalised by new farming methods and by the European Economic Community, and to act as a catalyst for economic development. This is a matter of great environmental importance, not least because at a time when acid rain is destroying our forests it offers us a chance to build one.
Why is Leicestershire the most suitable of the five sites? I apply to it the criteria that the Countryside Commission would apply. It is the least treed of all the sites—the most green field of the sites. There is a small forest, Charnwood —small compared with Sherwood—from which the proposed forest would radiate. The region has many old mines and areas which require landscaping. As industries decline, the need for this forest becomes increasingly important. Alas, the traditional industries of Leicestershire are declining—knitwear, hosiery and footwear—and we need the new life that the forest would bring. It is essential if new industry is to be attracted to our county.
The Countryside Commission said that one vital factor in choosing the site would be the willingness of local people to have it. I pay tribute to the stunningly successful woody tree campaign which was run by the Leicester Mercury and which evoked 10,000 telephone calls in
114
support one weekend, thousands of letters sent through the post and representations which will be sent on. Schools and individuals in my constituency say that, although the forest will be outside Leicester, it will provide a vital new asset to the city, a new lung and a new resource for the people who live in it.
The Countryside Commission said that there must be support at local level which must be maintained, and I am sure that it will be. The commission said that it will be some 20 years before the first trees show signs of lively growth and perhaps 50 years before there is real progress. I hope that my constituents will be good enough to keep re-electing me so that I will be there to feast and picnic in that forest in 20 years' time, if not in 50. I hope that, with the united phalanx of Leicestershire Members of Parliament—whether they are able to speak in the debate or whether they can only sit and listen and nod—the Countryside Commission will hear what we have to say and recognise that Leicestershire is the right county for this magnificent new forest.
10.17 pm
Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate and for being so courteous to other Leicestershire Members in allowing time for us to speak. As he said, I am the Member perhaps most affected by the proposal for a new forest in the midlands if our area is selected. I need not go through all the arguments so admirably put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to why we should have the forest. I shall concentrate on other matters.
If we are to have the forest, it is right that we should show that we support it locally and that it will be loved, cherished and looked after by local people. The Countryside Commission will consider that criterion in making its choice. We in Leicestershire have shown how much we want the forest and will look after it.
I pay tribute to the magnificent campaign run by the Leicester Mercury, informing people and getting the overwhelming support of the local population. The newspaper ran a phone-in and found that 10,000 people were in favour and only 44 against. That speaks for the support that the forest will have in our area.
There is another aspect. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West comes from the city and referred to the delights to which the city dwellers will look forward. The forest will not only offer leisure facilities and attract. tourism—it will be a delight for the people of Leicester who we hope will be able to come along the Ivanhoe line from Leicester, stop at a glade in the middle of the forest and picnic there in summer, enjoying the delights and benefits that the forest offers.
I shall not go around demanding that the forest be in north-west Leicestershire, crossing south Derbyshire into Staffordshire. I do not make such a demand because that is not how the Countryside Commission operates and that is not how it will be persuaded to choose our area. I merely say that our area wants the forest, we need it and we will give it all the support and love that is required in such an immense undertaking. Our area is therefore eminently suited to be considered for the siting of the forest.
10.20 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)?
Mr. Vaz: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This year, my hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) celebrates a generation in the House, having been a Member for 20 years. With his usual generosity he has allowed other Leicestershire Members to take part in the debate. I am particularly fond of my hon. and learned Friend because he brought me to the House in 1979 and took me on to the roof. It was my first visit.
Today Leicester Members on both sides of the House are united in support of the campaign. I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury, the editor Mr. Leys, and its journalists for leading the campaign so dynamically. Newspapers are so often destructive, but here we have an example of a newspaper playing a constructive role in leading public opinion.
I believe that the people of Leicestershire and my constituents will cherish the forest. It will become a vital part of life in our beautiful county, which lies modestly in the heart of England. I hope that the Minister will take note of the tremendous and rare unity that we display today and will use his good offices to pass on our views to the chairman of the Countryside Commission.
10.22 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West has worked closely with the Leicester Mercury on this matter, which affects his own constituency. I am a member of the Leicestershire branch of the Country Landowners Association executive committee, although I own no land in Leicestershire or anywhere else—apart, that is, from a quarter of an acre of garden. At our meeting some months ago, members expressed considerable unhappiness that other counties were making more of their claim to have the forest sited in their area than Leicestershire. As a result, tremendous efforts were made by Leicestershire county council, the Leicester Mercury and others to get the forest in its rightful place, which is Leicestershire.
I am unique among Leicestershire Members in having a potential competitor in my own area. The Northamptonshire forest, if granted—I hope that it will not be granted—would spill into Rutland, but I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Rutland district council has said that it does not want the forest. Apparently,
"The north western part of Leicestershire was thought to be more deserving of such a scheme than Rutland."
That is the decision of Rutland district council, and I am happy to commend it.
10.23 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for giving us this opportunity to be seen among other Leicestershire Members demonstrating our solidarity in
116
favour of the forest. The forest has caught the imagination of the people of Leicestershire. The Leicester Mercury has run a good campaign. We have shown that there is very little opposition and a fantastic amount of support. That is hardly surprising because, of all the proposals, this is the only proposal for a really new forest. The forest may be between two existing forests, but the land on which it will be planted is virgin territory—it has never before been planted with a large number of trees.
There are many former mineral sites in the county which need attention and are eligible for grants. We desperately hope that the forest will come to north-east Leicestershire. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), whose idea this was originally, that there should be a massive campaign in favour of the forest and we are all behind him.
10.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising this important issue on the Adjournment and on securing this striking degree of all-party support. We have heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) as well as from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has ensured that his duties in the House coincide with the debate.
The interesting idea of a midlands forest emanates from the Countryside Commission which launched a consultation paper last November, giving certain details and seeking views on several key factors, particularly funding, management and, perhaps most important, location. It identified five areas which it has shortlisted—first, a north-south belt between Birmingham and Coventry; secondly, land on the borders of Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire; thirdly, an area in north-east Northamptonshire which takes in part of south-east Leicestershire; fourthly, the Sherwood forest area, mainly in Nottinghamshire but extending into eastern Derbyshire; and finally, the most westerly option, land from Droitwich into Hereford and Worcester and northwards to Telford.
The commission's aim in suggesting those options is to decide on a final site later this year which will launch a 150 sq mile multi-purpose forest, only about half of which will be in strict terms under tree cover, with the rest consisting of a blend of small woods, fields, towns and villages. In due course, like its famous and ancient counterpart in Hampshire, we hope that the new forest will become a major national asset.
The Countryside Commission has chosen the midlands for all of its candidate sites. Why? It is partly because much of the farmland is vulnerable to changes in agriculture in the light of farm surpluses and other changes in the pattern of agriculture. In addition, the midlands includes major centres of population which in some cases are only poorly or incompletely served with opportunities for countryside recreation. In addition, the past activities of industry have

117
produced a legacy of damaged landscapes in the area which offer considerable scope for environmental improvement.
To bring the project to completion would be a long-term challenge of great complexity. It would be the work of several generations. I am sure that good progress could be made within the first 30 years or so and that the forest would serve to enhance the landscape as well as create new habitats and outlets for recreation. It would create jobs and eventually provide an important source of home-grown timber. Great thought will have to go into planning the forest to get the balance right between soft woods and hard woods and between the different species of hard woods.
The commission has rightly stressed that, to succeed, the forest must attract the support of local people, landowners, businesses and central and local government. The consultation paper marked a first step in seeking their views. It carried a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who described the concept of a new lowlands forest as "bold and far-reaching". However, he endorsed the importance attached by the commission to canvassing a broad range of opinion to ensure that
"any scheme which results enjoys the wide support which will be a vital factor in its success".
I am sure that the commission will take into account the degree and depth of local support and the strength of local campaigns in selecting a final choice. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has drawn attention to the support in his constituency and in Leicestershire generally. I know, because I have seen the press cuttings, that the Leicester Mercury has run a notable campaign in support of that site. The consultation period runs until 28 February and in parallel the commission has in hand several further studies covering likely costs, the socio-economic effects of the proposed forest and its potential environmental impact. It is also conducting surveys of public opinion in the areas concerned.
The next step will be for the commission to consider the results of those studies, once available, and the detailed response to public consultation itself.
Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend said that the consultation period ran until 28 February. Will he ensure that this debate is brought to the attention of the Countryside Commission?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I undertake to do so.
The next step is to consider the results of the surveys and, as part of the consultation process, to study the views of Members of Parliament and what is said both inside and outside the House, as I have promised.
I should stress that besides the all-important matter of location, on which the debate has focused, a number of key points remain for exhaustive consideration. Obviously, funding will be important. Considerable resources will be required for a large-scale, long-term programme.
Mr. Ashby: British Coal owns a great deal of the land and much of it has been ravaged by mining. Should not British Coal put in a great deal of the funding? Will my hon. Friend consider that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The greater the sponsorship from the private sector or from public bodies such as British Coal, the more likely it is that the candidate sites will receive favourable consideration. I urge hon.
118
Members not to waste any opportunities to secure corporate funding to bolster the case for their particular sites or constituencies. It is a major project and costs will be substantial. Although there are planting grants under existing schemes run by the Forestry Commission and other bodies, of themselves they will not be sufficient. We are looking for outside, additional funding to get the project off the ground and to ensure that it is followed through to a successful conclusion.
A second aspect on which decisions would be needed relates to the land itself. A significant area would need to be converted from its present use to woodland. We need to consider how that would become available, bearing in mind the size of the project. I have already said that, in total, it would encompass about 150 sq miles. There is no question of compulsory purchase—that has already been ruled out by the Countryside Commission. In any case, as I have emphasised, the forest would not consist of unbroken tree cover. Farmland and continued agriculture would form part of the essential character of the forest. However, the commission believes that local landowners would be keen to establish and manage new and existing woodland cover, but complementary to that there is also scope for linking new woodland and recreation facilities to new development and for converting derelict land to lowland forest.
I do not rule out the acquisition of land on the open market, for example, by bodies already owning and managing land, for conservation and amenity purposes.
Last but not least, we need to look ahead to see how the project and the forest would be managed in the longer term. As the commission stresses, we are talking of an extremely long-term investment and that highlights the management requirement and the essential need for continuity of that management.
Some people suppose that planting a forest is simply a question of putting in a few saplings, going away for 40 years, coming back and finding a forest. That is not the case. Trees need to be staked, watered, weeded and kept free of vermin and vandalism. In other words, we need a long-term commitment by people living and working in the area.
Mr. Tredinnick: Several villages in my constituency come within the new forest area and there is a genuine determination among landowners and all those working on the land to make a success of the project. One or two farmers were concerned that they would be forced out of business, but they have been reassured. There is tremendous support for the project right across the board in this part of west Leicestershire.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I re-emphasise that there will be no compulsory purchase of land—essentially the undertaking is voluntary—and I hope that that reassures landowners in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The commission has not yet decided what the vehicle should be for undertaking the large project. Should we set up a private company on which private and public interests are represented? Should the company be publicly owned or should a voluntary organisation, perhaps with charitable status, push the project through? Perhaps the answer will be a combination of all the models, but I do not want to prejudge the issue.
As hon. Members have said, the proposed midlands forest is part of a wider trend. Worldwide there is increased

119
interest in all matters to do with trees and forests. More than ever we are conscious that the stability of global ecosystems, even of the climate itself, is crucially dependent upon forest cover in ways that we are only now beginning to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West mentioned our coal deposits, which were laid down over some 300 million years. In the space of just a few centuries, however, we are putting a lot of that coal back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Planting trees can reverse that process and fix carbon dioxide back into solid form. It might be a nice concept locally that we are completing the carbon cycle by planting trees.
Great concern has also been expressed about the destruction of the tropical rain forests. In only three years this country has suffered great storms of considerable violence that have caused the loss of many trees. Some 15 million were lost in the great storm of 1987 alone. It is therefore vital that we do all we can, where we can, to promote new planting. I remind the House that only 10 per cent. of Great Britain's land area is covered by forest, in
120
comparison with the 25 per cent. average forest cover in the European Community. There is considerable scope for increased planting.
I emphasise the importance of local support and commitment to the project. We want to harness local enthusiasm and convert it into firm offers of involvement by private and voluntary organisations, companies and the public generally. In part at least, a final choice of location for the forest will be critically dependent on practical local support of that sort.
We have had a useful, although short, debate. The vision of a midlands forest is an exciting one. But, like anything worth while, it will not be achieved without hard work and commitment. From what I heard during this debate, that dedication exists in the midlands in abundance. I cannot possibly prejudge which of the candidate sites will be selected. For the present, I must simply note the views expressed. I have already undertaken to pass them on to the Countryside Commission. I will certainly bear in mind both the support and the views expressed when the final decision has to be taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Physics Departments
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which university, university college and polytechnic departments of physics have closed in the last five years; and which such departments are expected to close within the next five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally. The future of individual physics departments is a matter for institutions to determine, in consultation with the relevant funding council.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the changes in provision for dyslexic children since the Education Act 1981; and if he will make a statement on the effect of these measures on the educational and vocational opportunities of these children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for LEAs to make appropriate education provision—and to assess its effects—for all pupils in their area including those with learning difficulties such as dyslexia, or "specific learning difficulties" as it is also known.

  The Government look to LEAs and to schools to ensure that suitable provision is, indeed, made for children with dyslexia, including teaching of reading and writing by methods appropriate to their needs.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures and initiatives have been taken to enable children who were identified as dyslexic at school to pursue and obtain further education and vocational qualifications without being disadvantaged by their difficulties.

  Mr. Jackson
  As part of their general duty to provide adequate facilities for further education for their area, local education authorities are required to have regard to the requirements of persons with learning difficulties, whether or not dyslexia has been specifically diagnosed. It is open to LEAs to seek information or advice from such bodies as the adult literacy and basic skills unit, which receives Government funding.

  Further Education
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of the numbers of students attending(a) full-time and (b) part-time courses at colleges of further education for each year since 1985, together with the proportion whose courses were part of the off-job training of an approved YTS.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available is as follows:2

  Numbers of students on further education courses in England

  Thousands

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  11988–89

  Full-time of which YTS (per cent.)

  340

  347

  354

  359

  6·2

  5·2

  5·3

  5·7

  Part-time day of which YTS (per cent.)

  626

  648

  676

  702

  14·8

  14·9

  17·9

  17·7

  Evening only of which YTS (per cent.)

  596

  634

  643

  694

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the total allocation to local authorities for capital spending on further education colleges for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Allocations made to local education authorities for capital spending on further education colleges for 1990–91 totalled £65 million as follows:

  £ million

  Major Building Works1:

  Committed expenditure2

  17·2

  Starts in 1990–91

  32·6

  Minor works

  6·1

  Equipment and Furniture

  6·1

  Reserve

  3·0

  Total

  65·0

  1 Projects in excess of £200,000.

  2 For DES approved projects which started in earlier years.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide the numbers of students who have taken examinations for further education qualifications in each year since 1985, together with the numbers in each year who had preceded that exam with a course at(a) a college of further education, (b) a private sector provider, such as a YTS managing agent and (c) a course at another public sector establishment, together with the proportion of passes in each case.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is as follows:

  Students on Further Education courses in England leading to a specified qualification

  number of students (thousands)

  1985–86

  944

  1986–87

  987

  1987–88

  1,034

  1 1988–89

  1,096

  1 Provisional.

  Alcohol Research
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the total spending of(a) the Medical Research Council and (b) the Science and Engineering Research Council on alcohol research involving animals since 1980.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) since 1980 the Medical Research Council's expenditure on alcohol research involving animals was £276,000;

  3

  (b) alcohol research involving animals is outside the remit of the Science and Engineering Research Council activities and there has therefore been no expenditure.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any estimate of the amount of land available for use as school playing fields; and what information he has on the comparable figures for 1979 and 1984.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Secondary Education, Plymouth
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, what capital expenditure on projects relating to the reorganisation of secondary education in Plymouth was approved by his Department.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not make capital allocations for individual projects at county and voluntary controlled schools. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have given today to his question about the total sums allocated to Devon for each of these years. It is for Devon LEA to decide how to use the resources available to it in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, what was the total sum allocated by his Department to English local education authorities and to Devon county council, respectively.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to capital allocations. The sums allocated in 1988–89 and 1989–90 and the amounts available in annual capital guidelines for 1990–91 are set out in the table. Allocations and annual capital guidelines are not directly comparable. The total for England in 1988–89 includes additional capital allocations which were mainly targeted at inner city areas. Each local education authority's annual capital guideline reflects the extent to which its plans for spending on schools and colleges matched the national priorities of providing new places in areas of population growth, cost-effective schemes for the removal of surplus places, continuing to remedy deficiencies in existing school buildings and new major building projects at colleges. In each of these years Devon's allocation as a percentage of its plans was above the national average.

  Gross bilateral aid to Sri Lanka 1984–1988 in constant 1990 prices

  £ thousand

  Year

  Gross Bilateral aid

  Total Financial aid

  ODA project aid (excluding ATP)

  of which ATP

  CDC project aid

  Total technical cooperation

  1984

  35,980

  32,827

  22,159

  3,839

  4,633

  3,153

  1985

  22,509

  18,777

  7,964

  595

  8,150

  3,732

  1986

  20,065

  15,417

  48

  9,800

  3,259

  4,648

  1987

  22,388

  16,768

  —

  6,296

  8,551

  5,620

  1988

  24,400

  16,063

  5,725

  5,064

  3,433

  8,336

  1 Also includes debt relief and disaster relief.

  Source: British aid statistics.
  4

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  England

  386,700

  352,000

  485,000

  Devon

  8,434

  14,177

  12,984

  Notes: Figures are in cash terms and in thousands.

  Capital Project Bids
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, and 1990–91, what were the total bids for capital projects by English local education authorities and by Devon county council, respectively.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested about local education authority plans for capital expenditure is as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  England

  952,630

  1,032,489

  1,326,529

  Devon

  10,732

  23,329

  28,679

  Note: Figures are in cash terms and in thousands.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to publish additional information on the working of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am today making available, and have placed in the Library, a note which sets out detailed rules and procedures for the operation of the scheme. I intended to do so, following undertakings given by my hon. Friend in Committee, as soon as I had held discussions with representatives of the higher education institutions. While some details remain to be finally settled, I think it right to publish this material now.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by type and by value at 1990 prices, what aid has been given, in each of the last five years, to Sri Lanka.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following are the figures requested. Further details are contained in ODA's publication "British Aid Statistics" which is in the House of Commons Library:

WALES

  Waste Disposal
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to evaluate the levels of toxic waste pollution, and constituent pollutants, contained at sites in Tythegston, Llanwern and Plantation lane, Newtown.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office study of contaminated land identified possible toxic waste sites including Tythegston and Llanwern, and provided an assessment of the toxicity of each. The information available indicated that the Plantation lane site at Newtown contained only domestic waste.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the major waste tip removal schemes either earmarked or under way in the counties of Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, Dyfed and Powys.

  Mr. Grist
  As part of the land reclamation programme the Welsh Development Agency is responsible for reclaiming waste tips. It is extremely rare for such tips to be completely removed: they are usually reduced in height and reprofiled, with excess material accommodated within the derelict site or on adjoining land. The number of projects involving the reclamation (not removal) of waste tips currently in progress and in the Welsh Development Agency's programme of future work is as follows:

  Welsh Development Agency funded waste tip projects

  County

  In progress

  In programme

  Dyfed

  —

  8

  Gwent

  3

  14

  Mid Glamorgan

  5

  38

  Powys

  —

  7

  West Glamorgan

  1

  9

  Total

  9

  76

  Rural Unemployment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give consideration to the compilation of statistics covering Wales along the lines of the estimates produced by the English Rural Development Commission of rural unemployment in England.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are no plans to produce such estimates. Unemployment rates are available for all travel-to-work and county areas in Wales but these areas are not categorised as rural or urban.

  Drugs and Medicines
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give statistics on a county basis of the volume and type of drugs and medicines returned in Wales to pharmacist and other agencies in response to campaigns launched by the Government and area health authorities;

  (2) if he will give, by volume and method, the costs of the disposal of the most prolific of the drugs and medicines returned to pharmacists by patients in response to campaigns launched by the Government and area health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  Past campaigns have been organised at local level and detailed information is not readily available centrally.
  6
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what funds will be made available to help Welsh pharmacies to dispose of medicines returned by patients in response to campaigns launched by the Government and area health authorities to reduce the amount of dangerous medicines held beyond their useful dates;

  (2) what means of disposal have been suggested by the Welsh Office as the best practicable method of destroying medicines returned by patients to pharmacists in response to campaigns launched by the Government and area health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  These matters are currently being considered by a working group of the Welsh pharmaceutical committee. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have considered any proposals which may be put to me by the committee.

  School Sports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a survey of school sports in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We expect to publish shortly a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of a survey of physical education in the secondary schools of Wales.

  General Practitioners
  Mr Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of electoral wards in Wales which will qualify for deprivation payments to general practitioners; if he will indicate the Jarman index score for each one; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The details of these issues have yet to be finalised. FPCs and the profession will be notified as soon as possible.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, after implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, payment for care at a treatment centre will continue to be paid for out of a central fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The costs of treatment centres will continue to be met centrally after the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The Department is considering how this will be achieved most effectively under the new arrangements.

  River Severn
  Mr Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has proposals to improve the standards of maintenance on the banks of the River Severn in Montgomeryshire to avoid further land erosion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Maintenance of river banks to protect against erosion is the responsibility of their owners.

  Deeside Community Hospital
  Mr Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the building of the Deeside community hospital:
  7
  (2) when he expects the completion of phase I of the Deeside community hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for the Deeside community hospital scheme rests with the Clwyd health authority. We understand that construction work on phase I is currently on target for completion in December 1991.

  Roof Tax
  Mr Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the economic consequences of the introduction of a roof tax in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said, the principal disadvantages of such a tax include its unfair and arbitrary impact on homeowners and tenants, its discouragement of home improvements and the lack of any clear link between the spending of a local authority and the size of an individual's tax bill.

PRIME MINISTER

  Accountancy and Audits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to use normal commercial accountancy and audit methods in all public sector departments.

  The Prime Minister
  Commercial accountancy and auditing methods have been or will be introduced in Government Departments where it is considered appropriate to use them. But as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained in Official Report, 22 January 1990, column 540, normally only cash-based appropriation accounts will be published for Departments or parts of Departments which do not become next steps agencies.

  Soviet Union
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has recently met representatives of the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs to discuss the promotion of free market democracy in the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  No. But we are actively supporting moves towards genuine democracy and a market economy in the Soviet Union.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list each category of parliamentary questions which it is her policy not to answer.

  The Prime Minister
  Of those questions not transferred, none.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library the letter written to Mr. Colin Wallace by Mr. Charles Powell on 16 February.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the treaty revision proposal which the Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 5 February should be submitted to the European Council on amendments to the treaty in relation to the final phases of European monetary union; and if she will seek to clarify the implications for the United Kingdom of the treaty proposal before the meeting of the European Council.

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February concluded that the Irish Government should table a treaty revision proposal, based on the relevant conclusions of the Strasbourg European Council. The opinion of the European Parliament is required on the question of convening an IGC under article 236 of the treaty of Rome. This was a procedural technicality to put into effect the Strasbourg presidency conclusions.

  The President of the European Council at Strasbourg noted that the necessary majority existed to convene a conference charged with preparing an amendment of the treaty with a view to the final stages of EMU. The Government have made it clear we believe that the convening of the IGC was premature, but that we will nevertheless participate in it.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to ensure that Parliament is fully advised of the outcome of meetings of the various Councils of Ministers; and if she will make a further statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 5 February.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend will be aware that it is normal practice for the outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers to be reported promptly to the House.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 8 February, Official Report, columns 716–17, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which gave a full report on the meeting to which my hon. Friend refers.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  General Synod
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners spent on the General Synod and its activities in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners do not fund the General Synod.

  Primary Schools (Wavertree)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if Church funding will be available to maintain the three Anglican primary schools in Wavertree, Liverpool.

  Mr. Alison
  None of the commissioners' funds are, by law, available for school purposes. I cannot speak for any other Church of England body which might be involved.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners intend to make any redundant churches available for civil marriages under the recent White Paper proposals.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners will wish to consider the implications of the White Paper in consultation with the redundant churches fund and others concerned in the Church before coming to any conclusion.

  "Living Faith in the City"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what consideration the commissioners have given or plan to give to the recently published Church of England report "Living Faith in the City".

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners are studying "Living Faith in the City" with interest and have already noted its positive comments on the commissioners' involvement in the urban priority areas.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Energy Production
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will express in coal tonne equivalents the amount of energy required to generate £1,000 of gross domestic product in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community as a whole.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The amount of energy required to generate £1,000 of gross domestic product for 1987, the latest period for which comparable figures exist, for(a) the United Kingdom is 0·85 tonnes of coal equivalent, (b) the European Community as a whole, is 0·8 tonnes of coal equivalent.

  These figures have been derived by expressing the gross inland energy consumption as a proportion of the gross domestic product measured in market prices. The gross domestic product for the United Kingdom and the European Community as a whole were calculated using purchasing power standards for comparison purposes. Further details on the definition of the gross domestic product used are given in the Eurostat publication "National Accounts ESA".

  Taxation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the categories of income tax payers for whom the average percentage burden of total taxation is higher now than in 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since income tax rates have been reduced and the main personal allowances increased by substantially more than the rate of inflation, taxpayers will now pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than in 1978–79 unless their incomes have risen even more rapidly than allowances. Average earnings have risen rather more than this. For taxpayers of working age whose incomes have increased in line with average earnings, average rates of income tax are lower for everyone except some married 10
  men with earnings of less than three quarters of average earnings. None the less, on the same basis, real take-home pay is higher than in 1978–79 at all levels of earnings.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people participated in the payroll giving scheme in each year of the scheme's existence; what total sums were given to charities as a result of the scheme in each year; and what was the cost to the Exchequer in each year.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are as follows:

  Payroll giving scheme

  Donors (thousands)

  Donations (£ million)

  Cost of tax relief (£ million)

  1987–88

  55

  1·0

  0·3

  1988–891

  125

  3·5

  1·0

  1989–901

  175

  7·0

  2·0

  1 Provisional.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of independent taxation in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 8 January at column 566 for the effect on receipts in 1990–91. The corresponding reduction in income tax receipts in 1991–92 is estimated to he £1·3 billion. The estimate includes the effect on the composite rate of tax on bank and building society interest in 1991–92, but makes no allowance for possible behavioural effects. The reduction in capital gains tax receipts in 1991–92 is tentatively estimated to be about £50 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised by local authorities in rates in each year since 1979; and what increase in income tax would have raised an equivalent sum at constant prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amount raised in total local authority rates in each year since 1978–79 is as follows:

  £ billion

  £ billion at 1989–90 prices1

  1978–89

  5·8

  13·6

  1979–80

  6·8

  13·8

  1980–81

  8·7

  14·9

  1981–82

  10·7

  16·6

  1982–83

  12·1

  17·5

  1983–84

  12·3

  16·9

  1984–85

  13·0

  17·0

  1985–86

  13·9

  17·3

  1986–87

  15·7

  19·0

  1987–88

  17·1

  19·7

  1988–89

  18·9

  20·2

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1989–90 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices.

  11
  In 1988–89 an extra 10p on both the basic and higher rates of income tax is estimated to have a direct yield of about £19 billion. This estimate ignores behavioural effects which would probably be significant.

  Non-industrial Staff
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the changes in numbers in central Government non-industrial staff in each year since 1979 and (b) comparable figures for local government, broken down by county and district.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The numbers of central Government non-industrial staff, on a full-time equivalent basis, in post as at 1 July are as follows:

  Thousands

  1979

  560·2

  1980

  544·9

  1981

  537·1

  1982

  523·2

  1983

  514·8

  1984

  500·9

  1985

  496·0

  1986

  501·8

  1987

  507·7

  1988

  504·6

  1989

  498·9

  In respect of local government, information in the form and detail apparently requested could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. Employment information which is readily available, for each county and district in England, is in terms of headcount, and is given for the latest period and a year earlier in quarterly press notices issued on behalf of the joint staffing watch through the Department of the Environment. Copies of these press notices and similar joint staffing watch data for Scotland and Wales are available in the Library. Figures of total local authority employment at mid-year are contained in the article on employment in the public and private sector, published in the December 1989 edition of Economic Trends.

  Age Allowances
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance the Inland Revenue issues to local officers on how to award pensioners' age allowances; what arrangements are in place to ensure consistency in treatment of such allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue issues guidance to local offices on all aspects of the income tax system. The guidance is aimed at producing consistency of treatment in applying the relevant legislation. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I shall be happy to look into it if he will let me have details.

  VAT
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been any changes concerning the regulations covering the levying of value added tax upon share dealing in the London market.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Value Added Tax (Finance, Health and Welfare) Order 1989 (SI 1989/2272) exempted from VAT 12
  with effect from 1 January 1990 the making of arrangements for or the underwriting of transactions in securities. The order implemented the requirements of article 1(1) of Council directive 89/465/EEC (OJ No. L226, 3.8.89, p.21).

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing to one place of decimals for each year since 1978 the share of gross domestic product accounted for by the items covered in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Ryder
  The data are not readily available in the form requested. There are in any case substantial differences in definition and coverage between gross domestic product and the household expenditure represented in the retail prices index.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in tabular form, and at constant prices, the amounts which would be payable each month(a) at current interest rates and (b) at the lowest interest rate achieved since June 1987, on a standard repayment mortgage repayable over 25 years of each of the regional average mortgages listed in his answer of 19 February, Official Report, column 518.

  Mr. Lilley
  The monthly interest payments for average new mortgages in each year, after deduction of basic rate tax relief, are given in the table. They are based on the current 14·5 per cent. mortgage interest rate and on the 9·8 per cent. rate which existed in June 1988.

  Monthly payment1

  Region

  Average new mortgage £

  9·8 per cent. interest rate £

  14·5 per cent. interest rate £

  Northern

  28,400

  173·95

  257·38

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29,600

  181·30

  268·25

  East Midlands

  34,700

  222·13

  328·67

  East Anglia

  44,600

  302·98

  448·29

  Greater London

  60,900

  436·10

  645·25

  South East

  53,200

  373·22

  552·21

  South West

  43,700

  295·63

  437·42

  West Midlands

  33,800

  214·78

  317·79

  North West

  31,300

  194·37

  287·58

  Wales

  30,200

  185·38

  274·29

  Scotland

  26,500

  162·31

  240·16

  Northern Ireland

  24,200

  148·23

  219·31

  United Kingdom

  38,300

  251·53

  372·17

  1 Assuming endowment mortgage.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total loss or gain to the average mortgagor claiming mortgage interest relief resulting from changes since the 1988 Budget in(a) direct taxation, (b) increases in the rate of interest on mortgages and (c) interest payments net of mortgage tax relief.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The average outstanding mortgage in 1987–88 was £17,000. The table compares the income tax and NIC payments and mortgage interest payments on a mortgage of £17,000 for a married man with a gross income of £18,000, the average for a mortgagor in 1989–90, under (i) the tax and NIC rates

  13
  and allowances and the mortgage interest rate of 1987–88 with allowances indexed to 1989–90 levels and (ii) the rates, allowances etc. actually in force in 1989–90. The comparison ignores any repayment of capital there may have been between 1987–88 and 1989–90.

  £ per year

  11987–88

  1989–90

  Change

  Income tax and NIC2

  5,246

  4,771

  -475

  Mortgage interest payment net of tax relief

  1,378

  1,772

  + 394

  1 After indexation.

  2 Before relief due under MIRAS and assuming that the income is all earned and that the wife has no earnings, that no allowances or reliefs are available other than the married man's allowance, that the man is contracted into SERPS, and that the post-October 1989 NIC rates and limits apply for 1989–90.

  Note Assuming average mortgage interest rates of 11·1 per cent. for 1987–88 and 13·9 per cent. for 1989–90.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he holds on(a) the number of cheque guarantee cards and credit cards presently in circulation and (b) those cheque guarantee cards which can also be used as credit cards.

  Mr. Ryder
  Data are not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce proposals to prevent banks from operating cheque guarantee card systems when, irrespective of their customers' wishes, those cards also operate as credit cards.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is a matter for a bank's commercial judgment whether it offers its customer a package which includes a combined credit and cheque guarantee card. However, under section 51 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it is an offence to give a person a credit card if he has not asked for it.

  Tax Appeals
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Board of Inland Revenue's practice in seeking a taxpayer's agreement that an appeal to the special commissioners should be heard instead by the general commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Board of Inland Revenue is publishing today, with my approval, a press release explaining when and in what circumstances an inspector may seek a taxpayer's agreement (or failing that a direction by the general commissioners) that an election for an appeal to be heard by the special commissioners should be disregarded.

  In deciding when the appeal should be listed for hearing, inspectors of taxes are to treat appeals to the special commissioners no differently from appeals to the general commissioners. Inspectors are only to ask taxpayers to agree that an election for hearing by the special commissioners should be disregarded when a decision is needed to arrange the listing, and then only where the inspector is satisfied that it is a delay appeal as opposed to a contentious appeal.

  Benefits (Tax)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total gross figure of P11D benefits on which income tax is charged for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: The taxable value of P11D benefits in 1989–90 is estimated to be £4·4 billion. This estimate is based on projections from data relating to 1987–88 and is provisional.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nepal
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations since 1 February regarding human rights abuses in Nepal, and in particular the suppression of opposition parties.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received a number of representations, but none has referred to the position of opposition parties in Nepal.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Nepal about human rights.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed human rights issues with both the Nepalese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister during his visit to Kathmandu last week.

  EC Treaty Revision
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the formal treaty revision which the Foreign Affairs Council of 5 February agreed to propose through the agency of the Irish Government will be subject to majority vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  All amendments to the treaty of Rome must be agreed unanimously by member states and ratified by national Parliaments. The discussion at the FAC on 5 February was on a procedural technicality to put into effect the Strasbourg presidency conclusions on convening an intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) of 8 February,Official Report, column 717, why the Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February agreed that the Irish Government should table a formal treaty revision proposal; what is the general purpose of the proposed treaty provision; and if he agreed to the proposed treaty revision proposal on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February considered the procedural technicalities required to give effect to the relevant conclusions of the Strasbourg European Council, in particular the requirement to obtain an opinion from the European Parliament.

  The President of the European Council at Strasbourg noted that the necessary majority existed to convene a

  15
  conference charged with preparing an amendment of the treaty with a view to the final stages of EMU. We have made it clear that, though we believe the convening of the intergovernmental conference was premature, we will nevertheless participate in it.

  Turkey
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Turkey with regard to the denial of human rights to Armenians within that country: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We regularly remind the Turkish Government of our expectation that they will respect the human rights of all people in Turkey. The Foreign Secretary did this most recently with Mr. Bozer, when he was in London shortly before his recent appointment as Foreign Minister.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have left Hong Kong over the most recent 12 months for which figures are available: and if he has any record of the nations to which they have moved.

  Mr. Maude
  The Hong Kong Government estimate that about 42,000 people left the territory during the calendar year 1989. Of these, some 95 per cent. went to the four most popular destination countries which are Canada, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand.

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East of 15 February,Official Report, column 327, if the reservation by Her Majesty's Government to act on their own if necessary relates to measures enacted under the Community treaties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Legislation can be modified or amendment only by the body that enacted it.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will bring forward legislation to protect small investors and the creditors of companies who relied on the reports of negligent auditors on the same terms as loan creditors who rely on their own commissioned accountant's reports;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to make auditors liable in negligence to third parties who rely on their published accounts to make investment decisions.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of instances when his Department has noted disclosure of an auditor's shareholding in a company.
  16
  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not collected. Ethical guidance issued by the professional accountancy bodies advises auditors generally not to hold shares in audit clients except in given circumstances.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many instances his Department has noted loans made by auditors to their clients.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not collected. Ethical guidance issued by the professional accountancy bodies advises accountancy practices not to make loans to clients.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has concerning the rate at which audit fees for large companies have been rising.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information about audit fees is not collected.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what letters he has received from investors, directors or others commenting on the role of Peat Marwick in the Ferranti affair.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whether, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 8 January,Official Report, column 518, he will provide details of (a) the investigations and (b) the inspectors which have come from the accountancy firms criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  Publicly announced appointments under the Companies Act of inspectors from accountancy firms which have been criticised previously by the joint disciplinary scheme are as follows:

  Name of company

  Firm of accountants

  Inspector

  Milbury plc

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. M. G Lickiss

  Westminster Property Group

  County NatWest Limited

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. D. L. Spence

  County NatWest Securities Limited

  Blue Arrow plc

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. M. D. Boohan

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  Robson Rhodes

  Mr.H.G.C.Aldous

  The Bestwood plc Atlanta

  Robson Rhodes

  Mr. J. Venning

  Fund Managers

  Limited

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those inspectors' reports completed since 1979 which remain unpublished.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Company Name

  Date of Report

  Intervestor SA

  31 August 1979

  Elliott Group of Peterborough Limited

  125 September 1979

  216 October 1980

  Helmville Limited

  13 November 1979

  17

  Company Name

  Date of Report

  Wilson-Mandleberg Limited

  30 April 1980

  Brush Aggregates Limited

  30 June 1980

  Parsons, Sherwin and Company Limited

  03 July 1980

  Andromeda Electronics Limited

  01 September 1980

  Reliance Plastering Limited

  04 September 1980

  Alarmount Properties Limited

  27 November 1980

  Portcarne Holdings Limited

  Mancrest Limited

  H. & C. Davis Company Limited

  223 December 1980

  Dunlop Holdings Limited

  310 March 1981

  212 November 1981

  Metalman Engineering Limited

  15 May 1981

  Brymore (Steels) Limited

  15 May 1981

  Phoenix Shipbuilders Limited

  25 May 1982

  Allied Suppliers (Ireland) Limited

  29 April 1983

  Hartley Baird plc

  21 December 1983

  Riafield Limited

  30 December 1983

  Cubar Construction Co. Limited

  28 August 1984

  Euroseas Securities Limited

  5 March 1985

  130 December 1985

  Alexander Howden Group plc

  226 June 1987

  Hartley Baird plc

  23 May 1986

  Pharmaceutex (IV Fluid) Limited

  4 June 1986

  Drivehouse Limited

  Furdrove Limited

  Corporate Management Planning Limited

  24 September 1986

  British Anzani plc

  28 November 1986

  Euroflame Holdings plc

  27 June 1987

  Medway Secondary Metals Limited

  21 October 1987

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  23 July 1988

  Signal Life Assurance Co. Limited

  16 November 1988

  Guinness plc

  124 November 1988

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  120 December 1988

  113 January 1989

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  15 April 1989

  Graylaw Holdings Limited

  28 November 1989

  Link Service Stations Limited

  Bank Street Securities Limited

  28 November 1989

  Pennine Commercial Holdings plc

  128 November 1989

  The Animal Defence Society Limited

  31 December 1989

  Minet Holdings plc

  216 January 1990

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  424 July 1986

  1 Interim.

  2 Final.

  3 Second interim.

  4 Interim published.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the costs associated with each of the inspectors' reports published in 1988–89.

  Mr. Redwood
  The inspectors' reports published during 1988–89 with their costs are as follows:

  Name of Company

  Date of Publication

  Cost £

  Emray plc (Now Equity and General plc)

  5 May 1988

  23,993

  Milbury plc

  Westminster Property Group Limited

  27 October 1988

  1,136,065

  Sumrie Clothes plc (Now Summer International plc)

  14 December 1988

  58,101

  Bremner plc

  7 June 1989

  153,156

  County NatWest Limited

  County NatWest Securities Limited

  20 July 1989

  1,088,880

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  6 September 1989

  150,771

  One of the Emray inspectors was a departmental officer whose cost is not separately identifiable. The report on The
  18
  Greenbank Trust plc was published on 5 August 1988. The inspectors were departmental officers and the costs of the inspection are not available.

  Fire Retardant
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about impregnation with fire retardant of babies' accessories and the linings of prams, pushchairs and cots.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received a number of representations from suppliers of nursery furniture regarding fire retardant treatments for cover fabric.

  The fire resistance of nursery furniture was the subject of full consultations in the context of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 and the 1989 amendment regulations.

  These regulations require that from 1 September 1990 most types of covers on nursery furniture (except baby nests) must pass the match test. The required level of fire resistance can be achieved by alternatives to the use of fire-retardant chemicals. These include the use of certain natural fabrics such as cotton over a fire resistant interliner, or the use of inherently match resistant fabrics.

  Overseas Companies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many overseas companies have set up operation in Britain in the past year.

  Mr. Redwood
  An analysis by country of incorporation of all companies which are incorporated outside Great Britain but have, in 1988–89, established a place of business here and register documents under part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985, is contained in table G1 of the "Companies in 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library. The number of overseas companies having subsidiaries here which were incorporated in the past year is not known.

  Company Policies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies employing more than 250 people have included in their annual reports a description of their actions to keep the employees informed on company policies and arrangements of their income, according to section 1 of the Employment Act 1982, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not available. Companies House staff carry out certain basic checks on accounts, but the contents are not scrutinised in detail except in response to specific complaints.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to analyse and identify the obstacles to company takeovers in other member states of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a report from Coopers and Lybrand in 1989 on barriers to takeovers in the European Community. This contains an inventory of the barriers that exist and an
  19
  assessment of their relative importance. The Department has also published a consultation document on barriers in the Community which summarises the principal barriers and the way they operate.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last visited the National Engineering Laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I visited the National Engineering Laboratory in 1971 when I was last a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will tabulate, by type and value, at 1990 prices the trade between Britain and Sri Lanka for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on United Kingdom trade with individual countries is published in tables ii (imports) and v (exports) of Business Monitor MM20 "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library.

  Investment Services Directive
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he expects to be the content of the proposed investment services directive; and when he expects that directive to be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  The draft investment services directive sets key standards for the authorisation of investment firms within the EC. It provides a "single passport" for an investment firm so that, once authorised in its home state, it can carry on investment business throughout the EC without the need for further authorisation.

  The directive contains provisions relating to the prudential supervision of investment firms. It sets out the responsibilities of home and host member states. Most conduct of business rules remain a matter for host state authorities. The directive contains provisions liberalising access to stock exchanges and other organised securities markets in the EC. It provides for co-operation beween regulators and also contains reciprocity provisions covering relations with third countries.

  The Commission submitted a text of the directive to the Council of Ministers on 3 January 1989, which was published in Official Journal No. C43 on 22 February 1989. The Commission submitted a revised text to the Council on 12 February 1990. This text has not yet been published in the Official Journal.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to put stricter controls over the purchase and use of fireworks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No. I believe that the right policy is to enforce rigorously the existing law against abusing fireworks, to educate the public to treat them with respect, and to check for safety any fireworks that do not comply with the new British standard.

  Accountants
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards establishing the new arrangements for the making and supporting of accounting standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  In October I announced that Sir Ronald Dearing had agreed to become chairman-designate of the Financial Reporting Council. His task was to negotiate terms with all concerned so that the new arrangements for making and enforcing accounting standards were in place in the summer. Sir Ronald has reported to me and the Governor of the Bank of England that he has established a firm basis on which to proceed to full implementation of the new arrangements. In particular he has received satisfactory assurances of the initial funding from the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies (CCAB), the International Stock Exchange (ISE), and the Bank of England on behalf of the banking community. I have told Sir Ronald that my Department will also be making a contribution of about one third of the costs to be incurred. The proposed budget not only covers the costs of the envisaged activities of the Financial Reporting Council and the Accounting Standards Board but includes a substantial provision for legal expenses by the review panel in the event of contested procedings on defective accounts.

  Sir Ronald has drawn up detailed proposals for the constitution of the new bodies. The chairman of the Financial Reporting Council will be supported by three deputy chairmen, and together the four will constitute an executive body responsible for finance and appointments. The deputy chairman, like the chairman, will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting jointly with the Governor of the Bank of England and will be senior representatives of the accountancy profession, the world of business and the financial community. On Sir Ronald's recommendation, and with the governor's agreement, I have asked Mr. Philip Couse (chairman CCAB), Sir Trevor Holdsworth (president CBI) and Mr. Andrew Hugh Smith (chairman ISE) to serve as deputy chairmen-designate, and I am delighted to say that they have agreed to do so. Formal appointments will be made when the Financial Reporting Council is established. In the meantime the group will give priority to indentifying the first chairman of the Accounting Standards Board.

  It is a considerable achievement to have concluded the necessary consultations and developed detailed proposals in so short a time, and I congratulate Sir Ronald on the excellent progress he has made. I have asked him to proceed without delay to implement the proposals so that the new arrangements are ready to take over from the present Accounting Standards Committee on 1 August.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will extend the consumer protection provisions of the Trades Description Act to estate agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 20 February at column 607.

ENVIRONMENT

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his response to the Environment Select Committee's report on the working of the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 6 February at column 584.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the local authority budgets for 1990–91 covering councillors' allowances will be based upon the present system of remuneration until he makes a decision on the introduction of a new system of councillors' allowances.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Until the regulations under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 for the new system of remuneration for councillors come into force, the present system continues.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions an application for an import licence under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 has been refused on the ground that an animal is unlikely to survive for any appreciable time if it is kept in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no record of the number of import applications which have been refused on these grounds.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to implement the resolution passed at the seventh meeting of the conference parties of CITES in Lausanne in 1989 regarding the transport of live animals checklist scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to him on 29 January 1990 at column 68.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria for assessing, in relation to the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, whether an animal is unlikely to survive for any appreciable time if it is kept in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our scientific advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, has provided us with a list of species which generally do not survive well in captivity, except in specialist hands. This list was compiled by a committee of experts following consultation with various non-governmental bodies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what conveniently available figures he has for the annual cost to his Department of administering Council regulation EEC 3626/82; and what proportion of this cost is borne by the importers;
  22
  (2) what is the approximate annual cost to his Department of administering the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976; and what proportion of this cost is borne by the importers.

  Mr. Trippier
  We estimate that the cost to the Department in 1989–90 of administering Council regulation EEC 3626/82 will be £487,000. The cost of administering the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act was approximately £123,000. None of these costs is borne by the importers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where it is shown that the welfare aspects included in article 4, section 2(c) of convention on the international trade in endangered species in wild fauna and flora have not been met, what representations are made to the CITES secretariat, or the exporting country, to ensure they are met in the future.

  Mr. Trippier
  When serious deficiencies in the transport of live animals come to light, they are taken up with the veterinary authorities of the exporting country. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 20 December,Official Report, at column 350.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what definition of a full-time student he applies in respect of eligibility for the community charge rebate for students.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The eligibility criteria for the student relief are set out in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/443). Advice to charging authorities on the application of these regulations is contained in community charge practice note No. 23, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are given to local authorities administering the community charge, concerning the savings which(a) a married couple, (b) partners cohabiting and (c) single people may have before the £8,000 threshold is applied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The housing benefit guidance manual (chapter 6), together with the community charge benefit guidance manual, provides local authorities with detailed guidance on the assessment of capital for married and unmarried partners, and for single claimants. Copies of both manuals are in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each standard spending assessment element used to calculate the standard spending assessment of Tonbridge and Mailing borough council in 1990–91, stating the amount of standard spending assessment attributed to each element.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The elements of the standard spending assessment for Tonbridge and Mailing are as follows:
  23

  £ million

  Other services

  5·364

  Capital financing

  0·466

  Total

  5·830

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he used for calculating the revenue support grant entitlement of Tonbridge and Mailing borough council in 1990 in accordance with paragraph 2.5 of the revenue support grant distribution report (England) for(a) standard spending assessment for the area of the receiving authority, (b) DA per adult, (c) CCSS, (d) relevant population, (e) distributable amount, (f) net TSS, (g) rate support grant and (h) population of England.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figure for the standard spending assessment for the area of Tonbridge and Malling is £57·443 million, the distributable amount (DA) per adult is £292·51, the community charge for standard spending (CCSS) is £277·94, the relevant population of Tonbridge and Malling is 76,916, the distributable amount for 1990–91 is £10,428·5 million, net total standard spending (TSS) is £29,805·3 million, revenue support grant to be paid to receiving authorities is £9,467·6 million and the sum of the relevant populations of all charging authorities in England is 35,652,150.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applicants for water shares had their cheques cashed and have not received their shares.

  Mr. Trippier
  As at Friday 23 February, the receiving banks for the water share offers were dealing with about 750 requests for replacement interim share certificates.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the basis on which applications for water shares by small investors were scaled down.

  Mr. Trippier
  Full details of the scaling down of applications by customers receiving preference, and by others, were published in the national press on 12 December. Each of the 10 offers was substantially oversubscribed, and this necessitated scaling down of most applications. Allocations favoured applicants for the lowest denominations and, among those applicants, preference was given to qualified customers.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a list of the major shareholders in the water industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  The registers of holders of interim rights in the water plcs are open to inspection. In addition, it is a requirement of the Companies Act that persons having an interest in 5 per cent. or more shares in any plc must give details of their interest to the company, and this information is open to public inspection.

  Councillors (Employment)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if people who will be employed by any new arm's length company formed with the new legislation 24
  directed at local government and are members of local authorities will be able to continue service as a councillor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  After paragraph 21 of schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 comes into force, a person employed by a company which is (in accordance with part V of that Act) under the control of a single local authority will be disqualified from membership of that authority. This will apply whether or not the company is an arm's length company.

  Councillors (Payments)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made with local authority associations on the question of the new formula for payment for attending council meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has received a letter from the chairmen of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, setting out certain points agreed by these associations. He has made it clear that the introduction of the new scheme of remuneration for councillors will be deferred until 1 July 1990 while these points are considered.

  Water Charges
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage increase in charge for each of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 was proposed to him by the West Kent Water Company before he announced his proposals for limiting increases in the charges of the statutory water companies in the reply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) of 7 February,Official Report, column 640.

  Mr. Trippier
  We took account of all representations made by West Kent Water Company before announcing our proposals for K on 7 February. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose the details of the company's representations as they were made on a commercial in confidence basis.

  Meriden Gap
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing special measures to reduce the pressure for development in the Meriden gap between Birmingham and Coventry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The area in question is in the green belt and is, therefore, subject to the strictest planning control; the Government will continue to attach great importance to maintaining effective green belt policies in areas like the Meriden gap.

  Housing, Solihull
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to reduce the number of houses requiring land provision by Solihull council, contained in his strategic guidance for the west midlands published in February 1988 from 7,500 to 7,000.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The housing figures in the strategic guidance for the west midlands (now incorporated in
  25
  planning policy guidance note 10) were confirmed after extensive discussions with the relevant local authority in 1988. They are now being used in structure and unitary plan preparation. Any change in one component would have repercussions elsewhere and I cannot agree to make this proposed reduction.

  Housing Management Grants
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation paper on the new section 16 grant regime of the Housing and Planning Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposals outlined in the consultation paper were generally welcomed by respondents although some views were expressed about the expected local authority contribution and the level of su4pport for ongoing training. I have carefully considered the representations made. I can see no reason to depart from the recommendations of the review committee.

  (a) Isis House

  Instances of IO attending police stations

  Offenders interviewed at police stations

  Calls cleared by telephone

  Number IO available

  1989

  January

  156

  196

  118

  4

  February

  164

  240

  147

  11

  March

  169

  226

  131

  14

  April

  183

  256

  117

  18

  May

  119

  181

  126

  4

  June

  127

  190

  90

  1

  July

  164

  265

  141

  17

  August

  138

  190

  126

  11

  September

  104

  164

  137

  18

  October

  165

  218

  130

  7

  November

  145

  215

  116

  7

  December

  119

  164

  120

  5

  1990

  January

  133

  177

  146

  2

  (b) ISIU, Harmondsworth

  Calls from the police1

  Number of immigration officers available

  1989

  January

  174

  0

  February

  202

  0

  March

  188

  0

  April

  185

  0

  May

  175

  0

  June

  182

  5

  July

  193

  7

  August

  212

  4

  September

  180

  1

  October

  185

  3

  November

  220

  1

  December

  187

  2

  1990

  January

  272

  2

  1 Enquiries cleared by telephone are not recorded separately and before November 1989 only the number of calls received was recorded —not the number of offenders; thereafter 1 call logged= 1 potential offender.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each month since January 1989 how many immigration offenders were identified as a result of police call-outs at(a) Isis house and (b) ISIU Harmondsworth.
  26
  Bids for promotion grant are now being invited from secondary agencies, and tenant groups wishing to apply for grant to develop a particular management option can now do so.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each month since January 1989 how many calls were made by the police to(a) Isis house and (b) ISIU Harmondsworth (i) where an immigration officer attended, (ii) which were cleared by telephone and (iii) where there was no immigration officer able to attend; and how many suspects were involved in each of the above three categories.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Immigration offenders identified as a result of police call-outs

  (a) Isis House

  (b) ISIU Harmondsworth

  1989

  January

  111

  95

  February

  156

  134

  March

  118

  94

  April

  137

  117

  May

  105

  83

  June

  108

  97

  July

  132

  91

  August

  120

  95

  September

  103

  100

  October

  126

  109

  November

  107

  133

  December

  79

  82

  1990

  January

  78

  106

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspected immigration offenders against whom action was taken by officers in each month since July 1989 at(a) Isis house and (b) ISIU Harmondsworth were (i) alleged illegal entrants, (ii) the

  27
  subjects of deportation orders, (iii) seaman deserters, (iv) overstayers, (v) people working in breach of conditions and (vi) people claiming British nationality; and how

  (a) Isis house—Offenders dealt with by category

  Claimed British nationality

  Illegal entrants

  Subjects of deportation orders

  Seaman deserters

  Overstayers1

  Working in breach1

  Total

  Illegal entrants

  Over-stayers

  Working in breach

  1989

  July

  101

  14

  3

  53

  20

  9

  8

  1

  0

  August

  83

  18

  2

  75

  34

  9

  7

  2

  0

  September

  65

  7

  0

  48

  21

  2

  2

  0

  0

  October

  80

  21

  0

  65

  24

  5

  4

  0

  1

  November

  80

  21

  1

  72

  32

  9

  7

  2

  0

  December

  85

  9

  1

  52

  33

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1990

  January

  95

  12

  0

  61

  29

  10

  9

  1

  0

  1 Includes cases in which no further action was taken, a police caution was issued or a report was submitted to headquarters.

  Available information about those served with notices of intention to deport or prosecuted for immigration offences relates to overstayers and those found working in breach of their conditions. This is set out below.

  Overstayers

  Working in breach

  Notice of intention to deport

  Police prosecutions

  Notice of intention to deport

  Police prosecutions

  1989

  July

  45

  0

  14

  2

  August

  71

  1

  28

  3

  September

  44

  3

  19

  1

  October

  58

  1

  17

  2

  November

  68

  1

  25

  2

  December

  45

  1

  28

  1

  1990

  January

  57

  0

  16

  4

  (b) ISIU Harmondsworth—Offenders dealt with by category:

  Illegal Entrants

  Subjects of Deportation Orders

  Seaman Deserters

  Overstayers

  Working in Breach

  1989

  July

  75

  3

  0

  31

  29

  August

  66

  4

  1

  37

  33

  September

  86

  6

  0

  40

  28

  October

  90

  6

  0

  34

  30

  November

  119

  10

  0

  34

  32

  December

  82

  15

  1

  28

  27

  1990

  January

  93

  10

  1

  52

  47

  Note: Those claiming British nationality are not recorded separately.

  Overstayers

  Working Breach

  Notice of Intention to Deport

  Police Prosecutions

  Notice of Intention to Deport

  Police Prosecutions

  1989

  July

  31

  0

  27

  2

  August

  37

  0

  21

  2

  September

  40

  0

  25

  3

  October

  31

  3

  27

  3

  November

  34

  0

  30

  2

  December

  24

  4

  27

  0

  1990

  January

  46

  6

  45

  2

  28
  many in each category were (1) served with notices of intention to deport and (2) prosecuted in the courts in relation to the immigration offence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:
  29
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in each month since July 1989 immigration officers at(a) Isis house and (b) ISIU Harmondsworth took action as a result of (i) police call-outs, (ii) denunciations, (iii) Home Office file inquiries, (iv) information provided by other Government agencies,

  (a) Isis House

  Action taken following

  Police call out

  Denunciations

  Home Office file inquiries

  Other Government agencies

  Middle/major tier operations

  Others

  1989

  July

  132

  16

  17

  0

  0

  12

  August

  120

  17

  29

  0

  25

  11

  September

  103

  8

  11

  0

  3

  10

  October

  126

  10

  22

  0

  0

  18

  November

  107

  28

  35

  0

  3

  22

  December

  79

  7

  12

  1

  54

  14

  1990

  January

  98

  23

  16

  7

  15

  21

  (b) ISIU, Harmondsworth

  Action taken following

  Police call out

  Denunciations

  Home Office file inquiries

  Middle/major tier operations

  Others1

  1989

  July

  91

  17

  14

  7

  6

  August

  95

  12

  8

  6

  5

  September

  100

  15

  13

  25

  6

  October

  109

  22

  9

  3

  11

  November

  133

  20

  18

  18

  5

  December

  82

  23

  22

  16

  5

  1990

  January

  106

  15

  18

  24

  20

  1 Includes information provided by other Government agencies.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make available to the House the report produced by the immigration service as a result of Operation Goldring.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The report concerns inquiries into applications for settlement on the basis of marriage and includes information about named individuals and agencies. It would not be appropriate to make this information available while the Department is considering the case for further action.

  Alcohol (Animal Tests)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) dogs and (b) baboons have been used in licensed alcohol research during each calendar year since 1985;

  (2) how many animals have been used in licensed experiments in the United Kingdom in connection with research into the link between alcohol and violent behaviour during each calendar year since 1980;

  (3) what information he has about the number of animals which have become physically addicted to alcohol as a result of licensed alcohol research in the United Kingdom since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on scientific procedures relating to alcohol research has been collected separately only since 1987, and has been published in table 3 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals,
  30
  (v) information arising from a major or middle-tier operation and (vi) information arising as a consequence of another inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Great Britain, 1987" (Cm. 515) and 1988 (Cm. 743), copies of which are in the Library. These statistics disclose that there were eight procedures involving dogs in alcohol research in 1988, none involving dogs in 1987, and none involving non-human primates in either year. The information recorded centrally does not reveal the further details about alcohol research for which the hon. Member has asked.

  Residence Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the residence directive which has been agreed in principle by the Home Affairs Council makes provision for the residence in the United Kingdom of dependants of European Economic Community nationals who are citizens of nations other than members of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. I explained to the House the provisions relating to family members during my speech on the proposed directives on 8 February at columns 1100–24.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the purpose of the minute of the recent meeting of the Council of Home Office Ministers which dealt with the possible extension of the definition of dependants for the purposes of the residence directive;
  31
  whether the Commission will be presenting proposals to deal with the issues raised in the minute; and if the issues covered by the minute will be dealt with by majority vote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 February at columns 810–11. If the proposed right of residence directives are adopted on the revised legal bases favoured by the United Kingdom and a number of other member states, any future amendment to them would require unanimity.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South of 7 December 1989,Official Report, column 461, if he will now make a statement on the issue of concessionary television licences at Willey Flatts, in Yarm, about which he has also received correspondence from the hon. Member for Stockton, South.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that we cannot identify the Willey Flatts scheme, nor trace any correspondence from my hon. Friend about it. If he will provide the full address, including the postcode, I shall be happy to investigate further.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister; and what discussions took place concerning the possible release of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on 25 January 1990 at column 1044.

  Firearms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Council of Home Office Ministers on the proposed mutual recognition of firearms licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the European Commission's proposals for a Council directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Commission has now put forward a revised draft of the directive but no discussions have yet taken place within the Council on the revised draft. We are however currently considering the amended proposals very carefully. The indications are however that, as drafted, the revised directive is unlikely to be acceptable to us as it fails to provide those safeguards necessary to preserve security and maintain law and order.

  Police (Corruption Inquiry)
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the inquiry by West Yorkshire police into alleged police corruption involving certain Merseyside officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the charges which have been agreed by the West Yorkshire police for the investigation have totalled £43,600.

  Demonstrations
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the cost of policing the students' march in London on 15 February; which roads were closed and between what hours; how many arrests were made; and whether he will consider issuing instructions to the Commissioner banning large marches on public roads during weekdays.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that on 15 February, between 12.45 pm and 2.40 pm, approximately 18,000 students marched from Battersea park to Hyde park. Some roads along the route were closed for a period as the march progressed, but information about the length of time particular roads were closed is not available. There were nine arrests during the march.

  Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 enables the police to impose conditions on persons organising or taking part in a public procession if they reasonably believe it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, or if its purpose is to coerce. In London any decision to impose conditions under the section is an operational matter for the Commissioner alone to decide.

  I will write to my hon. Friend when information on the additional cost of policing the march is available.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what computer codes have been or will be used to assist in the assessment of fire risk as part of his Department's consideration of public fire safety; and if such codes are open to public scientific scrutiny.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office statistical Department uses codes to computerise information recorded on the fire report forms received from United Kingdom fire brigades in respect of all major fires. The Home Office codebook is a complex document designed for use by trained coding staff. Work is currently under way in the Home Office to revise both the fire report form and associated coding. Interested parties are being consulted, and the final version will be distributed to all United Kingdom fire brigades.

  Northamptonshire Constabulary
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the authorised establishment and (b) the actual strength of the Northamptonshire constabulary in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Northamptonshire Police

  31 December

  Authorised establishment

  Actual strength

  1979

  978

  926

  1980

  978

  971

  1981

  1,066

  1,003

  1982

  1,066

  1,000

  1983

  1,018

  1,001

  1984

  1,025

  1,010

  1985

  1,031

  1,017

  33

  31 December

  Authorised establishment

  Actual strength

  1986

  1,054

  1,041

  1987

  1,074

  1,075

  1988

  1,106

  1,090

  1989

  1,121

  1,119

  From 1 April 1990, the authorised establishment of the force will be increased by 20 posts.

  ID Cards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce national identity cards; what contingency plans he has for the introduction of identity cards should the need arise; whether he plans to study the advantages of introducing a national identity card in future; whether he has any plans to explore the technological specification for a national identity card; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The advantages and disadvantages of a compulsory system of identity cards were examined last year, when it was concluded that the former were outweighed by the latter. My right hon. and learned Friend accordingly has no plans to introduce such a system now, nor in any contingency which is at present foreseeable, and there would be no purpose in exploring the technological aspects of a compulsory card.

  Gun Clubs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 592, regarding gun clubs, if he will specify what he means by a reasonable time which will be allowed to them in which to comply with the revised criteria; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office officials will shortly be writing to each approved club explaining the new criteria and indicating the date by which it should comply. Clubs will be given about three months from the date of issue of the letter in which to adapt to the new controls.

  CPS (North Wales)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any complaints from the Chief Constable of North Wales about the conduct by the Crown prosecution service of north Wales of criminal proceedings against persons accused of assaults against police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from the chief constable of north Wales about the relationship between the police and the Crown prosecution service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Within the forum provided by the Director of Public Prosecution's senior liaison committee, on which the Home Office is also represented, the chief constable of north Wales, in his capacity as chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' crime committee, has raised matters of mutual interest to the police and the Crown prosecution service and has drawn attention to the effect of certain Crown prosecution service requirements on the police service.

  Rates Arrears
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many repossession orders for non-payment of rates have been issued in each year since 1976 within each(a) district, (b) borough and (c) city council area; and how many individuals have been imprisoned due to rates arrears in the same period.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: I am assuming that the information requested relates only to Wales. Information on repossession orders for non-payment of rates is not collected centrally. According to records held centrally, which are approximate, two people were known to have been committed to custody by courts in Wales for non-payment of rates in 1976. The corresponding figures for 1982 and 1988 were seven and four respectively. Statistics for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information for England and Wales is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (table 6.3 of the latest volume, for 1988, Cm. 825) copies of which are in the Library.

  Community Service
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the criminals failing to complete their community service orders are returned to court for re-sentencing.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The available information is published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1988" (table 7.28), a copy of which can be found in the Library. The information relates to the proportion of offenders sentenced to community service orders who breached that order. "Breach" means either the failure to comply with the requirements of the order, or the commission of a further offence. The court may either allow the order to remain in force, or revoke the order and resentence for the original offence.

  Alcohol (Sale to Children)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were carried out in the past two years in West Yorkshire of people guilty of selling alcohol to children; if he will give the details year by year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: Information for 1987 and 1988 is given in the table. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Persons proceeded against for the illegal sale of alcohol to children West Yorkshire

  1987

  1988

  Prosecutions

  15

  13

  Convictions

  11

  12

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation terms he is offering to companies who had invested in designing the technology necessary to introduce a football identity card.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.
  35
  The question of compensation does not arise. The companies responded in competition to the invitation to tender for the national membership scheme issued by consultants on behalf of the football authorities. The companies were fully aware that in considering whether to implement the scheme the Government would take account of Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster and that the Football Membership Authority would not be appointed until a statutory instrument had been made subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  Each Department of the Northern Ireland Civil Service reports losses borne on its voted moneys in a losses statement appended to the end of the relevant appropriation account. These accounts are certified and reported to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor-General (Northern Ireland). The 1988–89 volume of the Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts (HC2) was printed on 4 December 1989. Departments are obliged to report all losses above a prescribed threshold to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  In addition, Northern Ireland Departments are required to notify the Treasury Officer of Accounts of the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Comptroller and Auditor General (Northern Ireland) of all discovered fraud (including computer frauds) proven or suspected within a Department or non-departmental public body which are perpetrated by members of its own staff, or members of the public or by contractors.

  For the year 1988–89 the following were reported:

  Number of cases

  Loss £

  Recovered £

  Internal fraud (by staff)

  12

  30,638

  1,380

  External fraud (non-staff)

  21

  78,676

  9,542

  Also, for the year ending 31 December 1988 the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) reported 3,757 cases of fraudulent claims for various benefits which resulted in a total payment of £621,109.

  The Northern Ireland Office does not prepare assessments on the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation. Financial controls operate throughout the Department to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that loss arising from theft or misappropriation is prevented. In addition the Department's internal audit unit provides an assurance as to the adequacy, effectiveness and application of existing financial controls. There were no cases of fraud reported during the 1988–89 financial year. Financial controls would be reassessed in the light of evidence of losses from theft or misappropriation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the methodology used in arriving at the regional rate.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the explanation of the regional rate methodology given in the information note "Northern Ireland Regional Rate" placed annually in the House of Commons Library in support of the statutory rule which gives effect to the regional rate. The Rates (Regional Rate) Order (Northern Ireland) for the current year was laid before Parliament on 7 March 1989. Similar arrangements will be made for 1990–91.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many businesses in Northern Ireland have now registered with the Fair Employment Commission as directed under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989; and what is the estimate of the number of businesses which have failed to register, but are required to do so.

  Mr. Needham
  As at 16 February 1990, a total of 1,662 concerns had registered with the Fair Employment Commission. The commission is currently not in a position to state how many concerns have failed to register. The commission's legal department is taking action to obtain information from approximately 80 concerns in order to establish whether they should have registered.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations that allow voters to opt out or opt in to the sale of their name and address from electoral registers; whether he has discussions with the Data Protection Registrar concerning the sale of the names and addresses from the electoral register; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No. The operation of the electoral registration system requires that the information in the register should be freely available. The provisions of the Representation of the People (NI) Regulations 1986 governing the publication and supply of the register reflect this fact and the conclusion that its use for other purposes could not effectively be prevented. The Data Protection Registrar was consulted before the provisions governing the sale of the electoral register in data form were introduced.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to alert voters to the fact that their name and address are routinely disclosed from the electoral register for other purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We have no such plans. The electoral register is a public document.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to protect voters who may be vulnerable to attack if their name and address appeared on an electoral register that is available for sale or inspection by the public; and whether he will make a statement.
  37
  Mr. Cope
  We have no plans to do so at present, but we shall continue to keep the matter under careful review.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marchioness
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions expects to complete his consideration of whether to bring criminal proceedings in connection with the sinking of the Marchioness.

  The Attorney-General
  The police investigation into the sinking of the Marchioness commenced immediately after the incident and is continuing. A number of reports have been submitted to the director (the most recent on 20 February 1990) which he is now considering with the benefit of advice from Treasury counsel.

  The director recognises the degree of public interest which attaches to the case and will ensure that it is dealt with as expeditiously as is consistent with thorough investigation and proper consideration of the evidence.

HEALTH

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take in response to the decision taken by the Doncaster health authority regarding the expression of interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The decision on whether to submit a formal application for NHS trust status, when Parliament has approved the necessary legislation, is a matter for the sponsors of the expression of interest in the unit concerned. When formal applications are prepared, RHAs will ensure that they are given local publicity and will seek the views of those with an interest including the health authorities concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider these views alongside the application, before deciding whether to approve it.

  British Medical Association
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to carry through assurances covered in his letter to the British Medical Association on 10 October 1989 into legislative proposals to Parliament.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My letter of 10 October 1989 to the British Medical Association reiterated assurances that firm budgets for drugs will not operate as cash limits and that the management arrangements proposed for operating the indicative prescribing budget scheme will not infringe in any way the right of a general practitioner to prescribe all those medicines which individual patients might need. This has always been Government policy and the proposals in the NHS and Community Care Bill are consistent with these assurances.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of patients on general practitioner lists for England and Wales and the Rochdale health authority area.
  38
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures requested for England and Wales and the Rochdale health authority area are 1,990 and 2,124 respectively, in 1988. In 1979 the average number of patients on general practitioner lists for England and Wales was 2,277, in the Rochdale health authority area the figure was 2,664.

  Charter for Children
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the charter for children, and the recommendations of the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For many years the Department has provided grant aid to the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital. We welcomed production of the charter. Recently we have received representations suggesting that district health authorities should refer to the charter in framing contracts for the provision of children's health services following implementation of the National Health Service review. We will commend this suggestion to health authorities.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will supply information on the achievement of the resource allocation working party target, for each year since its inception, in relation to all districts in the Mersey region.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Disabled People (Services)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" that there is widespread failure by local authorities to fulfil their duties under section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, he will use his powers under section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to take urgent action in all individual cases brought to his attention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  While the report revealed differences in the extent to which social services departments have agreed new policies and introduced new operational plans in the light of section 4 of the Act, it did not reveal evidence of widespread failure to comply with that section. Requests to invoke section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948 are considered on their merits. The Department takes up serious cases directly with the authority concerned.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" that money allocated through rate support grant for the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 gets lost elsewhere, he will reconsider his decision not to ring-fence funds transferred from the social scurity budget for community care in 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  39
  Mr. Freeman
  No. We believe that Government support for community care expenditure, as with other important local authority functions, is best provided through the revenue support grant. This will ensure maximum local accountability and encourage value for money by enabling local authorities to make decisions about community care based on local factors. A large specific grant under direct control of central Government would weaken the improved accountability of local authorities to those who will be providing funds through the community charge scheme.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" that his Department's circulars on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 have been widely ignored or misunderstood, what action he will take to ensure that there is greater compliance with the guidance he will issue on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  While the report indicated that with some sections of the Act, some authorities had still to translate intention into action, and some were confused about how section 10 of the Act should be interpreted, it did not produce evidence that departmental guidance on the Act had been widely ignored or misunderstood. The guidance we intend to issue to help local authorities implement our proposals for community care will be drawn up in close consultation with them and will be linked to the statutory requirements outlined in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The social services inspectorate will closely monitor compliance with the guidance.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" concerning the implementation of section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, what action he intends to take to ensure that his policies in the White Paper "Caring for People" in relation to support for informal carers are put into practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We will be requiring local authorities to publish community care plans, setting out information to be provided to service users and their carers about the social care services available to them. We intend local authorities to involve other interested agencies including carers in drawing up their plans. The social services inspectorate will play an active part in inspecting these plans, monitoring performance and offering advice and guidance to authorities and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Where necessary we will not hesitate to intervene in order to stimulate improvements.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" concerning the implementations of section 9 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 he will now produce, in conjunction with the local authority associations and 40
  voluntary organisations, model guidelines on the provision of information to people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report showed that local authorities are aware of the need to improve their information services and many are planning to produce booklets and leaflets. We will be monitoring further progress in this area. In view of the differences in local circumstances, we do not think model guidelines would be helpful.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the evidence in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" concerning the implementations of section 10 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 he will now seek information from local authorities in England about persons co-opted on to social services committees under that section and the procedures for selecting them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to extend detailed inquiries about the operation of section 10 to all local authorities. A copy of the report has been sent to all directors of social services. The implications of the findings in respect of this and other sections will be discussed at a seminar on 6 March arranged by the social services inspectorate to explore ways of developing services to disabled people in the light of the report. The seminar will be attended by managers of social services departments, representatives from voluntary organisations concerned with disability, and disabled people and their carers.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take on the recommendation in the social services inspectorate report "Developing Services for Disabled People" that the problems with London in respect of implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 warrant further investigation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The seminar to which I referred in my replies to the right hon. Member today is expected to take particular note of the problems highlighted by the report concerning implementation of the Act in London, and to consider the steps which might be taken to tackle them.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take in relation to local authorities which fail to fulfil their duties under sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in respect of disabled young people leaving full-time education at the end of next summer term; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  While the report highlighted the difficulties some authorities may face in setting up arrangements for disabled school leavers next summer it would not be right to assume from this that there will be failure to comply with these sections. A follow-up report on the operation of these sections last summer is in preparation and will be published shortly. There will be further discussions of these issues at the seminar on 6 March which can be expected to give a clearer indication of the position across a wide range of local authorities.

  Health Authorities (Computer Processing)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional health authorities have transferred their computer processing to which commercial organisations; and in each case what has happened to those who were employed by the authorities in work related to computer processing.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of those regional health authorities that have transferred their computer processing to commercial organisations are as follows:WESSEX—Have transferred all computer processing to the private sector. Two centres exist containing former RHA computer staff covering both IBM and ICL installations. One is run by ISTEL and the other by Wessex Integrated Systems, a subsidiary of CIPFA Facilities Management Ltd. The staff are all working in the private sector except for a small core organisation responsible for strategic advice, overall monitoring and contract compliance.
  TRENT—Have transferred their RHA computer centre to ISTEL. The computer centre employed 88 staff and 83 of these have transferred to ISTEL's payroll; the remaining five will remain on the RHA payroll but are contracted to work for the new organisation.
  WEST MIDLANDS—A management buyout of the RHA's Management Service Division was concluded on 20 December. The new company is called QA Business Services and all staff have transferred to it.
  Four other Regions—Yorkshire, Mersey, Northern and East Anglian are at varying stages of negotiation with commercial organisations.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the procedures for abortion included within the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys statistics under the terms(a) other surgical, (b) other medical and (c) other and combined methods.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure that all selective reductions of pregnancy are being registered under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am advised that doctors should perform selective reduction of pregnancy only if the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 are fulfilled. All operating practitioners are required to notify the Chief Medical Officer, within seven days, of each abortion they perform.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, on 20 February, if his Department has sought or received information from the Humana hospital regarding the selective reductions of pregnancy carried out there.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not release information of a confidential nature about treatment given to patients in hospitals or elsewhere.

  Powered Wheelchairs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the reports on the powered wheelchair study being carried out by the Disablement Services Authority.
  42
  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Disablement Services Authority, which established the study and will, no doubt, act on its results.

  Hospital Optometrists
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has issued any instructions altering the pay rates of hospital optometrists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A new pay and grading structure. for hospital optometrists had been agreed and the new pay rates were promulgated in "Advance Letter (OP) 1/90" issued on 19 January 1990, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The agreement gives an increase on all pay scales of 6·5 per cent. from 1 April 1989, assimilation to a new pay spine from 1 December 1989 and regrading under the new structures to be completed by 1 July 1990. The new spine gives salaries in the following ranges:

  Grade A— £9,239 to £12,158

  Grade B—£12,644 to £23,682

  Grade C—£22,771 to £31,164 (or £37,915 with full use of five discretionary points available to employing authorities under the agreement).

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total paid, or liabilities entered into, by the West Midlands ambulance service in respect of support and services supplied by the police, the Army and other organisations from the start of the ambulance dispute to the latest available date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost of military assistance to individual health authorities has not yet been assessed. The costs of assistance by police and other organisations are met directly by the health authorities concerned and information is not available centrally.

  Organ Donations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to instruct area health authorities to include questions regarding donation of organs on hospital admissions forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to issue such instructions.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what publicity he intends to give to the possibility of exchanging the devalued milk token for a giro for the full cost of a pint of milk at local Department of Social Security offices.

  Mr. Freeman
  There does not appear to be any need for publicity on this particular aspect of the milk token scheme. Local social security offices will continue, as before, to exchange a milk token for a giro where, exceptionally, a beneficiary has been unable to obtain milk. Local offices will continue to offer advice on all benefits when needed.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what safeguards he has included to ensure that the value of the token can be spent only on milk when a milk token is exchanged for a giro;
  43
  (2) whether recipients of milk tokens are able to claim their statutory right to a free pint of milk a day by exchanging their tokens for a giro for the actual cost of a pint of milk at their Department of Social Security offices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cash is given in lieu of milk tokens when beneficiaries, exceptionally, cannot obtain milk with the token. This is done only when local social security offices are satisfied that the token cannot be used to obtain milk and beneficiaries are advised that the cash is intended for milk.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what staffing provisions he has made within the Department of Social Security to cope with the expected number of potential claimants who will wish to exchange their milk tokens for giro.

  Mr. Freeman
  Staffing provisions already take account of this practice which has been carried out by social security local offices for a number of years.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will restore the value of the milk token to a level sufficient to cover the cost of a pint of milk delivered to the doorstep or purchased in a neighbourhood shop.

  Mr. Freeman
  The reimbursement price system brought into effect on 28 January 1990 reflects the size and value to

  Patients treated in NHS hospitals, North Western and South Manchester health authorities. 1978, 1979 and 1988–89

  1978

  1979

  1988–89

  Per cent. increase 1978 — 1988–89

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  511,674

  509,049

  640,548

  25·2

  Day case admissions

  68,080

  70,608

  126,486

  85·8

  New out-patients

  707,676

  699,717

  779,346

  10·1

  Total out patient attendances

  3,149,423

  3,156,219

  3,512,983

  11·5

  South Manchester District Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  57,545

  57,110

  72,389

  25·8

  Day case admissions

  5,502

  6,975

  18,940

  244·2

  New out-patients

  68,354

  69,137

  75,183

  10·0

  Total out patient attendances

  354,740

  361,288

  379,472

  7·0

  Source: 1978, 1979; SH3 return. 1988–89; SH3a, KH09, KH18 and KP70 returns.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the amount of funding other than Government funding for each training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Eggar
  It will be for each training and enterprise council to decide how it will generate income from sources other than Government funding.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, in respect of each training and enterprise council appointed, the number of competitive bidders there were.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have not received any competing bids to set up a training and enterprise council (TEC) from different groups covering the same area.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the training and enterprise councils together with their likely operational date.
  44
  the dairy industry of the welfare milk scheme, which enables liquid milk to be obtained on the doorstep or from any shop.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis people were invited to attend the meetings on National Health Service trusts held on 23 and 24 October 1989, 14 and 15 December 1989, and 22 and 23 January.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  People were invited to these meetings on the basis that they represented units which have indicated that they were considering preparing applications to become NHS trusts in April 1991, if Parliament approves the necessary legislation. A representative from each regional health authority was also invited.

  North Western RHA
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) inpatients, (b) outpatients and (c) day patients were treated by the North Western regional health authority and South Manchester health authority in 1988 and 1989; and how many were treated in 1978 and 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Eggar
  Fifty-five employer-led groups have been given development funding to establish training and enterprise councils (TECs). The areas involved are listed in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)Official Report, 13 February 1990, columns 207–08. These groups are now preparing their proposed corporate and business plans for consideration by the national training task force.

  We expect the first TECs to become operational in spring 1990 and others will follow.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the board members of each training and enterprise council together with their occupation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employer-led groups are currently drawing up corporate and business plans for training and enterprise councils (TECs). These plans will include the proposed board of directors of each TEC. A full list of board members is not therefore currently available.
  45
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations have been made to him by training and enterprise councils about funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations on funding from training and enterprise councils as they prepare their corporate and business plans.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether training and enterprise councils will be required to publish an annual analysis of their activities or other means of public information.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each training and enterprise council (TEC) will be required to publish a summary of its corporate and business plan. In addition each TEC will be required to publish an annual report and a statement of audited accounts.

  Visually Handicapped People
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the training needs of workers with visually handicapped people;

  (2) what discussions have been held with the Association of Directors of Social Services on the resourcing of training of specialist workers with visually handicapped people;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that there are adequate numbers of specialist workers with visually handicapped people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of specialists employed by local authority social service departments to work with visually handicapped people is a matter for individual authorities to decide in the light of their assessment of local need. In 1985, the Department commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to carry out a comprehensive review of the training and work of specialist workers with visually handicapped people. This was followed, in 1988, by an external management and financial review of the three specialist training bodies concerned. Officials have held discussions based on the recommendations in the reports of these reviews with a

  Table 1: Unemployment, not seasonally adjusted

  Birkenhead TTWA1

  Wirral and Chester TTWA1

  Merseyside

  England

  Great Britain

  Number

  Percentage rate2

  Number

  Percentage rate2

  Number

  Percentage rate2

  Number

  Percentage rate2

  Number

  Percentage rate2

  January 1979 (Registrants)

  17,003

  10·6

  —

  —

  83,666

  12·0

  1,108,433

  5·4

  1,391,220

  5·9

  June 1983 (Claimants)

  29,632

  18·5

  35,359

  17·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage change

  74·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  January 1990 (Claimants)

  —

  —

  21,761

  10·5

  84,423

  14·1

  1,277,107

  6·2

  1,586,632

  6·6

  Percentage change

  —

  —

  -38·5

  —

  0·9

  —

  15·2

  —

  14·0

  —

  1The definition of travel-to-work areas changed in 1984. The current travel-to-work area within which Birkenhead falls is Wirral and Chester. Data is for the current area back to the earliest available date (June 1983). Earlier data is given for the old travel-to-work area of Birkenhead.

  2 Narrow based rate.

  46
  variety of interests, including representatives of local authorities, voluntary organisations and the relevant specialist training bodies. The recommendations in the reports have also been drawn to the attention of the Association of Directors of Social Services.

  Action Credit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is the policy of his Department to treat action credit participants as employees in the same way as employment training and YTS participants for the purposes of(a) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, (b) the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and (c) the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Participants in the action credit pilot scheme have the same rights under(a) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, (b) the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and (c) the Race Relations Act 1976, as other employees.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment both in actual numbers and expressed as a percentage, according to the latest figures and in 1979 for(a) Birkenhead travel-to-work area, (b) Merseyside, (c) England and (d) Great Britain; and if he will express the change in the number unemployed in each of the four categories in percentage terms.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is contained in the following tables.

  Where available, unemployment data are normally given on a seasonally adjusted, consistent basis, with unemployment rates expressed as a percentage of the work force, as given in table 2. The unadjusted data given for England and Great Britain in table 1 can be used to make comparisons with the smaller area figures, for which seasonally adjusted data are not available. However, comparisons over time shown in table 1 are affected by changes to the count as well as seasonal influences, in particular the change from the registrant to the claimant count in 1982.
  47

  Table 2: Unemployment, seasonally adjusted

  England

  Great Britain

  Number

  Percentage rate1

  Number

  Percentage rate1

  January 1979

  842,300

  3·8

  1,049,900

  4·0

  January 1990

  1,221,000

  5·1

  1,512,200

  5·5

  Percentage change

  45·0

  —

  44·0

  —

  1Workforce rates.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants, based on the national monthly returns between 9 October 1989 and the period ending 24 December 1989 and for each region and for Great Britain as a whole(a) have been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudicating officer for not actively

  National monthly return—actively seeking referrals and disallowances refusal of employment referrals and disqualifications Period ending: 29 December 1989

  Actively seeking employment

  Refusal of Employment

  Regions

  Claimants issued warning letters

  Claims referred to adjudication officer

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Claims referred to adjudication officer

  Not disqualified

  Disqualified

  Northern

  430

  50

  5

  17

  17

  4

  10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  481

  80

  3

  18

  61

  6

  2

  East Midlands and Eastern

  515

  68

  33

  11

  89

  21

  20

  London and South East

  2,689

  463

  84

  71

  536

  54

  59

  South West

  474

  107

  16

  28

  45

  6

  4

  Wales

  548

  99

  16

  16

  53

  6

  11

  West Midlands

  585

  79

  20

  13

  86

  17

  7

  North West

  831

  76

  30

  20

  45

  9

  8

  Scotland

  917

  96

  20

  19

  42

  13

  2

  National

  7,470

  1,118

  227

  213

  974

  136

  123

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has received any representations on the latest report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have received no formal representations.

  School Visits
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the delay experienced by a party from Swindon comprehensive school, near Rotherham, on 20 February before it was possible to commence their visit to this place, and if he will urgently consider improvement of the arrangements concerning such visits.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  None. Proposals to duplicate the screening facilities in the Norman Porch in order to speed up access for visitors have already been agreed with the other place and English Heritage. It is hoped that these arrangements will be ready by late spring.
  48
  seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed and (d) have been referred to an adjudicating officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefits disqualified.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the statistical information for the period 9 October to 29 December 1989 on questions of actively seeking employment and refusal of employment.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Order Paper
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current estimated annual cost of producing the House's Order Paper.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The actual cost of producing the Order Paper in 1989 was £770,000.

  Traffic Safety
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will give fresh consideration to the need to make representations to Westminster city council for traffic measures to improve the safety of hon. Members whose offices are in Old Palace Yard and other locations which involve frequent road crossings.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that after further consideration of Westminster city council's proposals the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee accepts that the regulation of pedestrians in the vicinity of Parliament square is essential to the improved flow of traffic. They consider that a crossing from Old Palace Yard would seriously impede that objective. It is, however, hoped that more effective control of traffic and pedestrians at other points will achieve an overall improvement in the balance between pedestrian safety and traffic flow.

  Chief Whips (Archives)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make available accommodation for the archives of Government Chief Whips.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No.

  Government Accountability
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals to strengthen the powers of the House to hold the Government to account for their actions; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No. Ministers are already fully accountable to Parliament.

  Timetable Motions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward an amendment to Standing Orders to provide that the Report stage and Third Reading of all Bills will be timetabled only if a minimum of two weekends has passed since Committee stage.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have no plans to do so.

  Offical Residence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there are any plans to designate an official residence for the Lord President of the Council.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  There are no such plans.

  House Stationery
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he intends to introduce recycled paper for all House stationery.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Services Committee has fully endorsed the principle of advancing the use of stationery made from recycled material by Members and Departments of the House. To this end the authorities of the House have been asked to liaise with HMSO to identify the extent to which it would be appropriate and practicable to use recycled paper for stationery and for parliamentary publications. Their report will be considered as soon as it is received.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he wll bring forward proposals to strengthen the Register of Members' Interests.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have no proposals at present. The appropriate body to consider any changes in the first instance is the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

TRANSPORT

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of providing free bus travel to pensioners and disabled persons in England and Wales for the year 1989–90.
  50
  Mr. Portillo
  Total local authority expenditure on all travel concessions for pensioners, disabled persons and children in 1989–90 in England and Wales is estimated at £350 million. No information is available on how much of this expenditure is on free bus travel for pensioners and disabled persons.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the normal business fares and cheapest fares available for flights between(a) London and (b) Manchester to (i) Stockholm and (ii) Moscow.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The normal business fares are as follows:

  £

  London-Stockholm

  216

  Manchester-Stockholm

  275

  London-Moscow

  427

  Manchester-Moscow

  487

  The cheapest fares are as follows:

  Return £

  London-Stockholm

  189

  Manchester-Stockholm

  235

  London-Moscow

  270

  Manchester-Moscow

  356

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to differences in the costs of air tickets from Manchester and London to European destinations of similar distance from the two cities; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Air fares from Manchester or from any other airport reflect the costs of providing the service concerned and the effects of the degree of competition on the route served. Fares from Manchester to European destinations tend to be higher than fares from London for a similar distance because of the lower level of demand which reduces operators' opportunities for achieving economies of scale.

  The best way of reducing fares all round, including those from Manchester, is through increased competition. Government policy is to remove restrictions in aviation agreements between Governments so that airlines are free to compete on fares and other aspects of their services, subject only to proper safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. We have had considerable success in liberalisation, both bilaterally and within the European Community.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the earliest and (b) the latest date by which he understands the marine accident investigation branch report into the sinking of the Marchioness will be (a) completed, (b) submitted to him and (c) published.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The inspector who led the inquiry into the Marchioness accident has submitted his findings and recommendations to the chief inspector of marine
  51
  accidents who is now preparing his report for submission to the Secretary of State. The Accident Investigation Regulations provide for any whose reputations may be adversely affected to see the proposed text of the chief inspector's report so that if any relevant sections are not agreed an alternative can be published as an appendix to the report. This important procedure will take a minimum of two months. Publication is expected to follow as soon as is practicable thereafter.

  East London River Crossing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received on the east London river crossing; and what percentage of the total(a) support and (b) object to the proposals.

  Mr. Atkins
  The decision that the east London river crossing should be built was taken in July 1988 and orders under the Highways Act 1980 have been made, fixing the route of the new trunk road. Further draft orders were published in January 1990 proposing a new design for the bridge across the River Thames and changes to the junctions with the A 13, Windsor terrace and the A2016. At the end of the objection period for these further draft orders on 22 February, over 6,200 representations had been received, many in a standard form as a result of campaigns by certain pressure groups. These are being analysed and a breakdown is not available at present.

  British Rail
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest projected figures for investment in British Rail over(a) the period 1990–1993 and (b) the period 1990–2000.

  Mr. Portillo
  Chapter 7 of the Public Expenditure White Paper includes British Rail plans to invest £3·7 billion in the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93, a 75 per cent. real increase over the previous three years. British Rail has included a projection for 1993–94 in its corporate plan, but no projections have been made for subsequent years.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total sums which his Department has(a) authorised for investment in the British Rail network and (b) paid to British Rail by way of public service obligation and any other Exchequer grants for the current British Rail financial year and for each of the two preceding years.

  Mr. Portillo
  All the information requested was published in chapter 7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1007). British Rail's financial year, like the Government's, starts on 1 April.

  Road Building
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest projected figures for investment in road building in the United Kingdom over(a) the period 1990–93 and (b) the period 1990–2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  Planned expenditure on trunk road building in England is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1,282

  1991–92

  1,322

  1992–93

  1,403

  52

  £ million

  Total

  4,007

  Yearly expenditure plans are made only for the three-year PES period. Road expenditure in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State. The figures do not include private finance.

  Local road building projections are a matter for local highway authorities. Chapter 7 of Cm 1007 lists the information available to the Department about local roads schemes over £1 million in 1990–91 in England.

  Public Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest projected figure for investment in public transport over(a) the period 1990–1993 and (b) the period 1990–2000.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information about the investment plans of the nationalised transport industries is contained in the public expenditure White Paper. For those industries for which my Department is responsible, the figures are:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  British Rail

  1,052

  1,258

  1,421

  London Regional Transport

  560

  630

  610

  Civil Aviation Authority

  90

  85

  106

  The figures shown for LRT exclude investment in the Jubilee line extension for which provision is shown separately in the White Paper. Planned investment in this project during the plan period is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  40

  1991–92

  190

  1992–93

  300

  The proportion of total local authority resources allocated to public transport is a matter for local discretion. Information on the resources available for local authority capital programmes in 1990–91 is given in paragraphs 76–77 of the Department of Transport chapter of the White Paper (Cm. 1007). No data are available for future years.

  The investment plans of private sector transport operators are a matter for them.

  No information is available on public transport investment plans beyond 1993.

  Merseytravel
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many delegations have written to him requesting a meeting to discuss Merseytravel's case for Government assistance; and how many he has met.

  Mr. Atkins
  I received three requests to meet delegations; hon. Members from Merseyside made their views known to me, both orally and in writing. I took these into account before making my decision, which was based primarily on the written submissions prepared by Merseytravel.

  A61 (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish the report of a study carried out by his Department's research laboratory on the A61 in Outwood in the Normanton constituency, giving the findings of the effects on the environment that traffic using this road is having on the local community; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to have the report on the traffic nuisance study carried out in December 1989 on the A61 in Outwood, in the Normanton constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The survey of traffic nuisance on the A61 at Outwood is being carried out as part of a wider study by the transport and road research laboratory to develop methods of assessing the environmental effects of roads and traffic. This involves surveys at 10 sites round the country, selected to represent a range of traffic conditions. The work is not aimed at identifying or solving problems at specific sites, and it is not intended to publish the findings of the Outwood survey separately or otherwise than in the form of statistical summaries. The information gained should enable the Department to refine its procedures for the environmental appraisal of road schemes by giving a firmer indication of the extent to which a new road, bypass or road improvement will reduce the nuisance caused by traffic. The work so far has been of an explanatory nature only. The main part of the study is likely to be completed by late 1991 and published soon afterwards.

  I regret that, because of an error in identifying the constituency in which this survey was to take place, the hon. Member was not informed in the usual way. An apology has been sent to the hon. Member by my Department.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls there are on the transportation of dangerous liquid on the public highway.

  Mr. Atkins
  The carriage of dangerous liquids by road is subject to the following regulations:

  The Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981;

  The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984, as amended;

  The Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986, as amended.

  Public Utilities Streetworks Act
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the 73 recommendations mentioned in the report of Professor M. R. Home on a review of the Public Utilities Streetworks Act 1950 have so far been implemented.

  Mr. Atkins
  Action has been put in hand or completed on all those recommendations in the Horne report which were accepted by the Government in their reponse published in July 1986. About two thirds of the report's recommendations require primary legislation and a consultation document was issued in May 1989 describing the proposed provisions to be included in a Bill which the Government intend to bring forward at a suitable opportunity.
  54
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to amend the Public Utility Streetworks Act 1950 to take account of the increased use of roads over the past five years and the traffic delays caused by excavations in road surfaces so as to accord with modern traffic flow requirements.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. Our proposals for legislation to reform the 1950 Act pay particular attention to the need to reduce the amount of traffic disruption caused by street works.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to increase the controls on contractors for failure to reinstate road surfaces under the Public Utilities Streetworks Act 1950.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our proposals for legislation to reform the 1950 Act include new requirements on undertakers of works to ensure that their reinstatements conform to prescribed standards for a fixed guarantee period.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to install crash barriers along all Britain's motorways.

  Mr. Atkins
  Central reserve safety fencing is an integral feature of motorway design. It is installed on all motorways except where the carriageways are widely separated.

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has undertaken of the relative costs and benefits of investment in(a) car transport and (b) cycle transport.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Investment in private means of transport is a matter of personal choice.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department concerning the effect of greater numbers of cyclists on decreasing vehicle pollution and global warming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have not undertaken such a specific study, but preliminary results from our cycle routes programme of research suggests that where modal shift to cycling takes place, the transfer is marginal. The evidence suggests that it tends to be from public transport and walking as much as from cars.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the first train to go through the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for Eurotunnel. Its projected completion of the tunnel system is 15 June 1993.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for income support have been made since April 1988 at the local offices of his

  (a) West Leeds

  (b) Leeds

  (c) West Yorkshire

  (d) England

  1988–89

  Claims received

  8,669

  53,949

  158,155

  3,040,010

  Claims awarded

  6,549

  43,036

  124,860

  2,373,514

  1989–90

  Claims received1

  7,948

  46,947

  138,592

  2,660,959

  Claims awarded1

  5,581

  34,667

  102,141

  1,901,468

  1 Figures (which are provisional and subject to amendment) do not include claims received or determined after December 1989.

  Benefits
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the latest figures of how many people are dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit, broken down into claimants, dependants and children and into England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is set out in the tables.

  (a) Claimants, partners and dependants in receipt of income support for May 19881 3

  Thousands

  Claimants

  Partners

  Dependants

  Total

  England

  3,594

  696

  1,830

  6,121

  Scotland

  499

  92

  236

  827

  Wales

  259

  53

  129

  441

  Great Britain

  4,352

  841

  2,195

  7,388

  (b) Non-income support recipients of housing benefit May 19882 3 4 5

  Thousands

  Claimants

  Partners

  Children

  Total

  England

  1,950

  640

  380

  2,970

  Scotland

  310

  100

  80

  480

  Wales

  110

  40

  30

  180

  Great Britain

  2,370

  780

  430

  3,630

  Family credit recipients as at 30 September 19895

  Thousands

  Claimants

  Partners

  Children

  Total number dependant on family credit6

  England

  257

  160

  545

  962

  Scotland

  39

  23

  77

  140

  Wales

  22

  15

  46

  84

  Great Britain

  318

  198

  668

  1,186

  1 Source: Annual statistical enquiry.

  2 Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System— May 1988.

  3 Figures rounded.

  4 Figures relate to non-Income Support recipients on Housing Benefit.

  5 It should be noted that some Family Credit recipients may also be in receipt of Housing Benefit.

  6 The totals are subject to rounding.

  56
  Department in (a) west Leeds, (b) Leeds, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) England as a whole; and how many of these claims were accepted.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to publish comparative data on the United Kingdom benefits scheme and that available in other Community member countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 1979 the Department has produced an annual publication entitled "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities". Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the social security offices which received an extra allocation of money for the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  London North Region

  Ealing

  Euston

  Highgate

  Paddington

  Poplar

  Tottenham

  Wood Green

  Walthamstow

  London South Region

  Ashford

  Brighton

  Camberwell

  Crawley

  Croydon

  Kennington Park

  Oval

  Peckham

  Portsmouth, South

  Southwark

  Midlands Region

  Birmingham, Northfield

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  Birmingham, Washwood Heath

  Chesterfield

  Coventry, East

  Leicester Lower Hill Street

  Mansfield

  Nottingham, Castle Gate

  Nottingham, David Lane

  Nottingham, Shakespeare Street

  Nottingham, Station Street

  Stoke, North

  Stoke, South

  North East Region

  Bishop Auckland

  57

  Bradford, South

  Dewsbury

  Eston

  Hartlepool

  Hemsworth

  Houghton le Spring

  Huddersfield

  Hull, East

  Keighley

  Leeds, North West

  Middlesbrough

  North Shields

  Peterlee

  Redcar

  Sheffield, South East

  South Shields

  Stockton

  Sunderland, South

  Wakefield

  Wath-on-Dearne

  York

  North West Region

  Birkenhead, South

  Blackburn

  Buxton

  Failsworth

  Huyton

  Liverpool, Belle Vale

  Liverpool, Breckfield

  Liverpool, City

  Liverpool, Garston

  Liverpool, Norris Gardens

  Liverpool, West Derby

  Manchester, Central

  Manchester, Longsight

  Manchester, Wythenshawe

  Middleton

  Salford, North

  St. Helens

  Scotland Region

  Aberdeen, North

  Arbroath

  Bathgate

  Campbletown

  Clydebank

  Dundee, West

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  Glasgow, Craigton

  Glasgow, Laurieston

  Glasgow, Provan

  Glasgow, Springburn

  Kilmarnock

  Leven

  Peterhead

  Stornoway

  Stranraer

  Wales and South West Region

  Aberdare

  Anglesey

  Bargoed

  Barry

  Bridgend

  Bristol, South

  Caerphilly

  Carmarthen

  Chippenham

  Deeside

  Haverfordwest

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Morriston

  Newport (Gwent)

  Port Talbot

  Porth

  Trowbridge

  Truro

  58

  Weymouth

  Wrexham (Group)

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the High Court judgment on the handling of the social fund, he will now remove the budget limit on social fund payments and recompense retrospectively those claimants whom the High Court judgment has now indicated have been deprived of their rights in the past; and if he will now make a full statement on his response to the High Court decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The High Court judgment concerned three applications for judicial review relating to different aspects of the social fund. Its essential points were:

  The power to give directions for the control and management of the social fund was confirmed.

  The directions on how social fund inspectors are to review decisions have been confirmed, but the guidance was found not to be consistent with the directions.

  The guidance on how the budget is to be taken into account in making decisions was found to be too prescriptive, and therefore not valid as guidance.

  We are consulting the social fund commissioner about the revision of guidance to social fund inspectors in the light of the second point of the judgment.

  So far as the third point is concerned, a letter was sent to all Department of Social Security offices by electronic mail on the day of the judgment, advising social fund officers that the local office budget and the level of priority that might usually be met are factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision and that the state of the local office budget is not the overriding factor. We intend to issue revised guidance shortly, taking account of the court's decision. That revised guidance will also take into account the fact that the requirements of the Social Security Act itself explicitly provide that social fund officers must have regard to the budget, and that the court itself recognised the clear intention of Parliament that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits. The revised guidance will be placed in the Library.

  We are considering whether further steps may be needed to ensure that the social fund is able to continue operating flexibly in accordance with the requirements of the primary legislation.

  In the Government's view a firm budgetary framework is essential to the sensible operation of the fund and nothing in the judgment calls that into question.

  One-parent Benefit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of one-parent families living in the London borough of Lambeth claiming one-parent benefit in 1988 and 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Partial Incapacity
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to help people who are partially incapable of work.

  Mr. Scott
  We plan to introduce, from April 1992, a disability employment credit which will help disabled people who are partially incapable of work take up and
  59
  return to employment by providing assistance with low earnings similar to that given to families through family credit. We estimate that about 50,000 people might be entitled to this new benefit. The DEC will be available to people receiving a new disability allowance or those who have been receiving invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or the income. support or housing benefit disability premium before starting work, and who satisfy a doctor that they are only partially capable of work. We are also improving incentives to rehabilitation in employment by increasing by £6·50 the therapeutic earnings limit in invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance and by extending invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance to people who undertake an employment rehabilitation course.

  Family Income
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest available figures for the number of(a) one-parent families headed by a woman, (b) one-parent families headed by a man and (c) two-parent families who rely on (i) state benefits, (ii) earnings from employment, (iii) maintenance payments and (iv) other items as their main source of income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Many families have income from more than one source. The estimates contained in the table are therefore based on families' main source of income.

  Estimated numbers of lone parents and two parent families by main source of income

  Great Britain

  Main source of income

  Lone parent families

  Two parent families

  Earnings

  280,000

  4,890,000

  State Benefits

  700,000

  720,000

  Maintenance

  40,000

  20,000

  Other items

  20,000

  60,000

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1987. This is a sample survey and may be subject to sampling error. Estimates are approximate only.

  The Family Expenditure Survey sample size is small and does not support a reliable analysis of lone parent families separately for families headed by a man and those headed by a woman. Information is therefore for all lone parent families.

  Notes:

  Earnings: Defined as earnings from employment and self-employment.

  State Benefits: Includes all types of Social Security Benefits.

  Maintenance: As well as alimony and separation allowances, this also includes allowances for foster children and allowances from friends, relatives, armed forces and Merchant Navy personnel. A further break-down within this category is not possible.

  Other items: Includes for example income from investments.

  5. The estimates for numbers dependent on "Maintenance" and "Other items" as the main source of income are based on a very small sample and are therefore subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the take-up using (i) the expenditure measure and (ii) the case-load measure for(a) family income supplement and (b) family credit, for the latest years available for each benefit on a consistent basis giving the figures for (1) employees, (2) self-employed and (3) employees and self-employed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information for family credit take-up is for April to December 1988 and is shown in the table. Since 1988 there has been a major TV 60
  and press advertising campaign and by the end of September 1989 the caseload had risen to around 320,000 compared with about 280,000 before the advertising began. Estimates of the effect of this campaign on the percentage take-up level cannot be made until information becomes available from the 1989 family expenditure survey about the total eligible population in that year.

  Expenditure-based take-up per cent.

  Caseload-based take-up per cent.

  (a) Family Income Supplement 1985–86

  54

  48

  (b) Family Credit 1988

  65

  50

  Notes:

  1. These figures are obtained from the Technical Notes, copies of which are available in the Library.

  2. No information is available for the self-employed.

  3. Owing to the small sample size, these estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the clearance time in days for family income supplement for 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, consistent with table 14·30 in chapter 14 of the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the same basis is available only for 1987–88, when the average clearance time was 16 working days.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the error rates for family income supplement in 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87, and 1987–88, consistent with table 14·31 of chapter 14 of the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Family income supplement error rates were as follows:

  per cent.

  1984–85

  3·2

  1985–86

  2·4

  1986–87

  3·1

  1987–88

  2·4

  However, information on error rates in family income supplement was collected on a less comprehensive and less sophisticated basis than is the case for family credit.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the number of people paying class 3 national insurance contributions and the cost of reducing those contributions in line with his October 1989 reductions for the low paid.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that around 250,000 people pay some voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions each year. The October 1989 contributions changes could not be directly applied to the class 3 rate because voluntary contributions are not earnings related.

  Disability
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his recent proposals on disability benefits will affect people who are blind or partially sighted.
  61
  Mr. Scott
  A number of proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: benefits for disabled people" (Cm 917) will benefit people who are blind or partially sighted. The new disability allowance, which will extend help to less severely disabled people of working age and below, will benefit people with seeing disabilities who have mobility or care needs. Blind people disabled early in life who have not been able to build up a national insurance contributions record will gain from the introduction of an age-related addition in severe disablement allowance; and those who are partially capable of work will be helped by the new disability employment credit, which will make it easier for disabled people to take up or remain in work. Blind people will also benefit from the following changes to be introduced in April: the extension of mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind; the increase, over and above the normal annual increase, in the adult disability premium in income support and housing benefit by £1 for a single person and £1·60 for a couple; and the more than doubling of the disabled child premium in income support and housing benefit, from £6·50 to £15·40 per week. Registered blind people automatically qualify for the disability premiums.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many hours of work and what level of earnings were taken to indicate potential entitlement when his Department analysed Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data for potential recipients of disability employment credit.

  Mr. Scott
  We propose that the structure of the disability employment credit should follow the main features of family credit, but precise details are being considered. The tentative estimate of 50,000 DEC recipients referred to in "The Way Ahead. Benefits for disabled people" (Cm 917) is consistent with a range of possible entitlement criteria for the number of hours worked and level of earnings.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those disability organisations he has invited to discuss "The Way Ahead" with him.

  Mr. Scott
  We have sent a copy of "The Way Ahead: benefits for disabed people" (Cm 917) to the following organisations, inviting their comments:

  Access Committee for England;

  Age Concern;

  ARMS;

  Arthritis Care;

  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus;

  Association to Combat Huntingdon's Chorea;

  British Diabetic Association;

  British Epilepsy Association;

  Centre on Environment for the Handicapped;

  Disability Alliance;

  Disability Benefits Consortium;

  Disabled Living Foundation;

  Disablement Income Group;

  Help the Aged;

  Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled;

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation;

  MENCAP;

  MIND;

  Motor Neurone Disease Association;

  Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

  National Council for Carers;

  Outset;

  Parkinson's Disease Association;

  RADAR;

  62

  RNIB;

  RNID:

  Scottish Council on Disability;

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped;

  SENSE—National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association;

  Spastics Society;

  Spinal Injuries Association; and

  Wales Council for the Disabled

  We will welcome comments from all interested organisations in the course of our detailed work on the proposals, in particular on the new disability allowance and disability employment credit.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist disabled pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  Measures introduced last October targeted £200 million additional help on less well-off elderly and disabled pensioners. These changes mean that 2·6 million pensioners will gain, by up to £2·50 a week in the case of single people and £3·50 a week for couples. Government proposals to improve the structure of disability benefits set out in "The Way Ahead: benefits for disabled people" (Cm. 917) will also help disabled pensioners by removing the upper age limit for paying for help with mobility needs and extending attendance allowance to people who are terminally ill without any waiting period.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria his Department has used in estimating that 140,000 people will benefit from the lower rate of the proposed disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) on 31 January 1990 at column 193.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of mobility allowance; how many have been disqualified from receiving the allowance during the past year; and for what reasons the allowance has been dropped.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The estimated average number receiving mobility allowance during 1989–90 is 615,000. During 1989, 449 recipients of the allowance ceased to qualify because of an improvement in walking ability; 272 because they no longer satisfied the residence and presence conditions; and 82 because they were undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody.

  Tax and Insurance Demands
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to curtail unannounced visits to farmers by Department of Social Security officials attempting to recover income taxes and national insurance payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Inspectors of the Department of Social Security have a duty to ensure that the Social Security Acts and regulations are being complied with. To achieve this they make visits to employers and self-employed persons. Many of these visits are pre-arranged by telephone and/or letter but some are unannounced. If such a visit is inconvenient arrangements can be made for an alternative meeting. There are no proposals to change or curtail such visiting arrangements.
  63
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to establish a register of gangmasters to provide a point of approach for Department of Social Security officials when serving income tax and national insurance demands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to establish such a register of gangmasters. Demands to gangmasters for arrears of their own or their employees' national insurance contributions are normally issued by post to the gangmaster's place of business or home address as appropriate.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions or circulars have been issued by his Department in connection with the ambulance dispute; how, for the purpose of income support claims, his Department categorises the dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No new procedural instructions or circulars in connection with the ambulance dispute have been issued by the Department. Standing guidance on trades disputes is given in chapter 33 of the adjudication officers guide and part 5 of the income support manual. Copies are available in the Library.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) further to the written answer dated 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region, etc., whether he will provide in each case an estimate of the numbers receiving housing benefit;

  (2) further to the written answer dated 14 February, Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region, etc., whether he will provide in each case an estimate of the numbers receiving rate relief.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall let the hon. Member have replies as soon as possible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the written answer dated 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region, etc., whether he will provide in each case an estimate of the numbers on family income supplement chargeable to poll tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For family credit, which has replaced family income supplement, information is available only on the basis of the number of adults in families receiving the benefit, and the only breakdown available is in respect of social security regions. The details are in the table:

  Number of adults in family credit families

  Social security region

  Number

  North Eastern

  94,000

  London North

  54,000

  London South

  44,000

  Wales and South Western

  78,000

  Midlands

  93,000

  64

  Social security region

  Number

  North Western

  90,000

  Scotland

  62,000

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, for each week since the start of January this year, the number of applications which have been made for community charge/poll tax benefit; the number which have been accepted; the amounts of benefit awarded as between (i) up to 50p per week, (ii) 50p to £1 per week, (iii) £1 to £2 per week, (iv) £2 to £5 per week, (v) £5 to £10 per week and (vi) over £10 a week; and if he will provide a classification of successful applicants as between(a) pensioners, (b) lone parents, (c) unemployed persons, (d) sick or disabled persons, (e) low wage earners and (f) other categories.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) 15 January,Official Report, column 120, regarding his Department's expenditure, (1) if he will give his estimate of each year's increase in expenditure accounted for by (a) an increase in the number of claimants and (b) a real-terms increase in benefit levels;

  (2) what has been the expenditure change in real terms between 1978–79 and 1989–90, for each of the beneficiary groups in table 14.9 at chapter 14 of the public expenditure White Paper, resulting from (a) an increase in the number of claimants and (b) increases in the real terms level of benefits; and, in relation to the elderly, what percentage in the real terms increase in benefit levels is attributable to the state earnings-related pensions scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Increases in expenditure brought about by the introduction of new benefits and enhancements to existing benefits do not always fall neatly into the categories (a) and (b). Factors such as the growing number of married women claiming contributory benefits can increase claimant numbers but produce an apparent fall in real average payments, whereas the reality is that the household's real income from social security is higher than it would have been previously. For this reason it would be disproportionately costly to devote resources to an attempt to give most of the information requested.

  Between 1978–79 and 1989–90, 2·6 out of the 24 per cent. real increase in benefit expenditure on the elderly, and 2·9 out of the 34 per cent. real increase in total spending on benefits, is attributable to the commencement and growth of spending on additional pensions with contributory benefits.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the social security benefits that are available, categorised under(a) contributory benefits,(b) non-contributory benefits, (c) means-tested benefits, (d) discretionary benefits, (e) other benefits and (f) employer-funded benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The main social security benefits are shown as

  65
  follows. Employer-funded benefits are not listed separately as they cover a wide range of contingencies including occupational pension schemes, redundancy payments, death benefits, maternity provision and private health schemes. Benefits in category (c) (income related) are also non-contributory.

  (a) Contributory

  Sickness Benefit

  Invalidity Benefit

  Maternity Allowance

  Retirement Pension

  Unemployment Benefit

  Widow's Payment

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  Widow's Pension.

  (b) Non-contributory

  Child Benefit

  One Parent Benefit

  Guardian's Allowance

  Severe Disablement

  Industrial Injuries

  Disablement Benefit

  Over 80 Pension

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  Retirement Allowance

  Industrial Death Benefit

  War Widow's or Dependants' Pension

  Attendance Allowance

  Invalid Care Allowance

  Mobility Allowance

  Lump Sum for Vaccine Damage

  War Disablement Pension

  Workmen's Compensation Supplement

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit

  Social Fund (Funeral, Maternity and Cold Weather Payments).

  (c) Income-Related

  Income Support

  Family Credit

  Housing Benefit

  Rent/Rate Rebate

  Community Charge Benefit

  Help with National Health Service charges.

  (d) Discretionary

  Social Fund (Community Care Grants, Budgeting and Crisis Loans).

  (e) Other

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Statutory Maternity Pay.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of extending the capital cut-off limit for community charge rebate scheme to £8,000 for spouses rather than for each couple.

  Date

  Destination

  Commodity

  Quantity(t)

  Price (pence per pound)

  February 1989

  USSR

  Wheat

  900,000

  3·7

  March 1989

  Poland

  Barley

  27,121

  3·4

  March 1989

  USSR/Poland/other destinations

  Wheat

  1,047,211

  14·1–4·3

  April 1989

  Poland

  Barley

  21,561

  3·6

  April 1989

  Poland

  Wheat

  67,706

  4·3

  April 1989

  USSR/Poland/other destinations

  Wheat

  233,305

  14·3

  October 1989

  USSR

  Barley

  1,244,550

  3·3

  November 1989

  USSR

  Wheat

  980,000

  4·3

  66
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on 22 February 1990.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Horse Exports
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had about checks at ports and airports in the United Kingdom post-1992 in respect of the export of live horses.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been many representations for the retention of existing horse export controls after 1992.

  Food Safety
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of his allocation for food safety research in 1989–90 had been spent as of 12 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not readily available but we estimate that in 1989–90 the Department will spend the moneys allocated to research and development on food safety and applied nutrition.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his spending of £8·5 million on food safety research in 1989–90 includes work on food spoilage and applied nutrition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The Department's food safety research programme includes work on applied nutrition and spoilage organisms which are detrimental to the quality of food.

  Food Surpluses (Sales)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the amount of special sales agreed by the European Economic Community over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will list the nations to which these food exports were sent and the average price of such sales in terms of pence per pound.

  Mr. Curry
  At any one time CAP arrangements provide for a number of sales schemes from intervention and from the open market. These tend to follow established patterns. However, the following sales to non-EC countries, agreed over the last 12 months, have distinguishing features:
  67

  Date

  Destination

  Commodity

  Quantity (t)

  Price (pence per pound)

  December 1989

  USSR

  Barley

  1,620,000

  3·7

  January 1990

  USSR

  Wheat

  3,220,000

  4·1

  February 1990

  Eastern Europe and USSR

  Rice

  12,150

  8·4

  The table above does not include goods exported free of charge as part of either the Community's food aid programme or the package of measures recently agreed to assist countries in Eastern Europe.

  1 The quantities destined for the USSR and Poland (which it is not possible separately to identify) benefited from an additional subsidy of 0·14 pence per pound.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total production of tobacco in the European Economic Community in each of the five most recent annual periods for which figures are available; what has been the cost to the European Economic Community of supporting the production and storage or purchase of tobacco in each of these years; and what has been the total expenditure in disposing of tobacco by means of exports to other nations in each of those years.

  Mr. Curry
  Total production of tobacco in the European Economic Community is shown in the table:

  Tonnes

  1984

  348,610

  EC10

  1985

  360,171

  EC10

  1986

  382,818

  EC12

  1987

  383,277

  EC12

  1988

  395,014

  EC12

  Expenditure on a given harvest impinges on the following year's budget. A breakdown of expenditure on the 1984 to 1988 harvests is shown in the table:

  Year

  Total expenditure (mecu)

  Premia (mecu)

  Intervention (mecu)

  Export refunds (mecu)

  19851

  863

  819

  12

  32

  19861

  782

  734

  16

  32

  19872

  804

  732

  27

  43

  19882

  966

  895

  28

  43

  19892

  1,139

  972

  105

  62

  1 EC10

  2 EC12

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to reduce the expenditure of the European Economic Community on tobacco production and storage.

  Mr. Curry
  An agricultural stabiliser was introduced in the tobacco sector in 1988. It achieved a saving of 11 million ecu for its first year of operation.

  Recent price-fixing decisions have resulted in reductions in prices and premia for the less marketable varieties. Measures to restrict and control intervention have also been introduced. However, existing market management measures have not been as effective as we would have wished. The Commission has shown a welcome determination to tackle the costs of the tobacco regime. In the current price-fixing discussions we are pressing for even more effective steps to promote budgetary discipline.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the tobacco grown 68
  within the European Economic Community is of (a) the high tar and (b) the low tar variety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  European Community production of the high tar varieties represented 65 per cent. of the 1988 harvest, with low tar varieties representing 35 per cent.

  We are concerned to ensure that support given to the tobacco regime does not undermine efforts being made under the Europe against Cancer programme to reduce the incidence of disease and early death attributable to smoking. The Commission's plan of action under this programme stresses the need to reduce production and redirect it towards varieties which are least harmful to health. One consequence of recent reductions in support for the less-marketable and higher tar varieties has been a 25 per cent. fall in production of some of these since 1987. The maximum tar directive, which will probably be adopted in May this year, will limit the tar content of cigarettes marketed in the European Community to 15 mg by 1992 and 12 mg by 1997 and contribute considerably towards limiting production of these varieties.

  We shall continue to press for measures directed at reorientation of production towards the more marketable and lower tar varieties.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of Community-produced tobacco which was used for consumption(a) within the European Economic Community and (b) outside the European Economic Community in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  There are no data available on the consumption of European Community raw tobacco. However, in 1988 the Community produced 395,014 tonnes and exported 149,869 tonnes to third countries.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in retail food prices over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the increase in retail food prices which will stem from the elimination of the green pound differential.

  Mr. Curry
  In the year to January 1990 the food component of the retail price index rose by 8 per cent. The Government are committed to eliminating the monetary gap associated with the green pound by the end of 1992 at the latest. The effect of devaluing the green pound will depend on movements in the market rate for sterling over this period. As a broad guide, elimination of the present monetary gap by devaluation of the green pound might add some I to 1·5 per cent. to retail food prices on average.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reached a decision on setting up the central veterinary laboratory and the veterinary medicines directorate as executive agencies.

  Mr. Gummer
  The feasibility studies set in hand by my predecessor following his written reply of 20 April 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) have now been concluded. I am satisfied in the light of these studies that setting up the central veterinary laboratory and the veterinary medicines directorate, both at Weybridge, as executive agencies will bring benefits in terms of further increases in the efficiency and effectiveness with which these two parts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conduct their business on behalf of customers in other parts of the Ministry and outside it. I accordingly propose to launch the two agencies with effect from April next. I propose to appoint Dr. T. W. A. Little as chief executive of the central veterinary laboratory and Dr. J. M. Rutter, the present director of the veterinary medicines directorate, as its chief executive.

  North Sea Dumping
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licence applications have been made over the past five years to the Oslo commission by the British Government to allow the dumping of wastes in the North sea; and what was the nature of the wastes in question.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 February,Official Report, at column 199. Since that date information has been submitted to the Oslo commission on a fifth waste, a chalk solution from sugar refining.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by works and by geographical location, the sources of the most significant volumes and tonnages of materials dumped under licence in the North sea over the past five years.

  Mr. Curry
  Most of the material dumped from the United Kingdom under licence in the North sea in the past five years has been material dredged from ports and harbours. The most significant volumes (in excess of 1 million tonnes per annum) have been dredged from the firth of Forth, the Tees, the Humber and the Harwich. Stone from certain collieries on the Durham and Northumberland coast has also been dumped at sea in quantities exceeding 1 million tonnes per annum.

  Three quarters of the sewage sludge dumped came from London. More than half the volume of liquid industrial waste disposed of at sea was from the ICI works at Billingham.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist for the monitoring of the effects of industrial waste dumping in the seas around Britain.

  Mr. Curry
  Monitoring is undertaken at least every two years in all disposal sites for solid industrial waste and in or close to all sites for liquid industrial waste. In addition there is a separate programme for surveillance of water 70
  quality of coastal areas. The Ministry also undertakes a programme of surveillance of quality of fish and shellfish in coastal waters and there is a continuing programme of assessment of fish disease in United Kingdom waters.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy for each county of England and Wales for the four-week period ended 16 February.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  20

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire

  26

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  7

  Cornwall

  50

  Cumbria

  14

  Derbyshire

  5

  Devon

  60

  Dorset

  63

  Dyfed

  27

  Essex

  5

  Glamorgan South

  1

  Gloucestershire

  26

  Gwent

  6

  Gwynedd

  1

  Hampshire

  44

  Hereford and Worcester

  18

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Humberside

  6

  Isle of Wight

  2

  Kent

  30

  Lancashire

  6

  Leicestershire

  30

  Lincolnshire

  11

  London

  2

  Manchester

  1

  Norfolk

  13

  Northamptonshire

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Oxfordshire

  22

  Powys

  5

  Shropshire

  27

  Somerset

  67

  Staffordshire

  18

  Suffolk

  10

  Surrey

  9

  Sussex East

  14

  Sussex West

  29

  West Midlands

  1

  Warwickshire

  15

  Wiltshire

  71

  Yorkshire North

  31

  Yorkshire South

  2

  Yorkshire West

  5

  Total

  838

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of bovines which have been identified since 30 September 1989 as bovine spongiform encephalopathy suspects at(a) slaughterhouses and (b) livestock markets; and of these how many were subsequently confirmed as bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases.
  71
  Mr. Maclean
  The information for the quarter October to December 1989 is as follows:

  Location

  Number reported

  Number confirmed

  Slaughterhouses

  22

  21

  Markets

  20

  15

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what records he keeps in respect of cattle infected with BSE; whether he now records the movement of progeny of BSE-infected cattle; and if he will wake a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  For each suspected case of BSE, the Ministry collects information necessary to study the epidemiology of the disease, including breeding history, feeding records and clinical history.

  Movements of all cattle must be recorded in accordance with the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960 (as amended).

  Rabies
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of deaths due to rabies in each of the countries of the European Community during each of the last five years for which data are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the last five years there have been five human deaths from rabies and in every case the disease was acquired in other parts of the world. The details are as follows:

  Year

  Country

  Where acquired

  1986

  West Germany

  India

  1987

  United Kingdom

  India

  1988

  Belgium

  Zaire

  1988

  United Kingdom

  Bangladesh

  1988

  United Kingdom

  Pakistan

  Source: WHO Rabies Bulletin Europe.

  Turkeys
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society about the number of inspections made on its behalf of turkey-rearing units owned by companies that compound their own foodstuffs to ascertain whether they are complying with the law relating to antibiotics.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989 inspectors of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain made 925 visits to premises registered for the manufacture of medicated feedingstuffs. It is not possible to identify separately how many of these were to turkey rearing units.

DEFENCE

  Foreign Exchange Costs
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the estimated foreign exchange costs, both direct and indirect, of the British forces in(a) the Federal Republic of Germany, (b) Cyprus and (c) Gibraltar for the last 12 months.
  72
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated direct foreign expenditure costs of the British forces in Cyprus and Gibraltar in 1989–90 are some £100 million and £50 million respectively. In respect of the foreign exchange costs of British Forces Germany, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 10 January 1990, at column 633. No reliable estimate can be made of the foreign exchange content of sterling expenditure in connection with these forces.

  Air Misses
  Mr Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air misses were recorded in the airspace over, and in the vicinity of, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  Two such air misses were reported in this period.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private security firms have had their contracts with his Department terminated prematurely as a result of unsatisfactory performance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have terminated a total of three contracts with private security firms prematurely as a result of unsatisfactory performance. Only two firms have been involved, however.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) of 16 February,Official Report, column 430, if he will list the defence establishments at which the private security firms are currently deployed in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Ireland and (d) Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give details of security arrangements at individual defence establishments.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the critera used by his Department to determine which establishments should be guarded by private security firms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose the criteria used to determine which MOD establishments should be guarded by private security firms.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the procedures for monitoring the performance of private security firms employed by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All contracts held by private security firms employed by the MOD are subject to monthly assessment by the Department. Companies that consistently fail to meet their contractual obligations will have their contracts terminated.

  Bishopton ROF
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with the Defence Police Federation in connection with the proposed withdrawal of Ministry of Defence police from Royal Ordnance Bishopton; and if he will make a statement.
  73
  Mr. Neubert
  The decision to withdraw Ministry of Defence police from Royal Ordnance Bishopton in June this year was taken in December 1989. The Defence Police Federation was informed immediately, and so was given six months' notice of withdrawal. It sought a meeting with officials which took place on 15 December at which the reasons for withdrawal were explained to it. There will be no redundancies among MDP officers as a result of the withdrawal as all officers concerned will be redeployed.

  "Clockwork Orange"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication his Department had with General Sir Peter Leng, former Land Forces Commander in Northern Ireland, on Saturday 17 February, after learning from Mr. James Adam that General Leng had made a statement about the sanctioning of Clockwork Orange.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  General Sir Peter Leng informed MOD officials on Saturday 17 February that he had no reason to disagree with any statements recently issued by Ministers concerning Clockwork Orange or other matters pertinent to the case of Mr. Wallace.

  Running Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current annual cost of maintaining Royal Navy vessels in the Caribbean;

  (2) what is the current annual running cost of the Armilla patrol.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not practicable to separate the costs of individual fleet tasks, since financial provision for manpower, fuel, supplies and other items is made to cover the operations of the fleet as a whole.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual running cost of the Army detachment stationed in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of maintaining an Army garrison in Belize in 1989–90 is £18 million. This includes a small element for capital costs.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual running cost of the Royal Air Force detachment stationed in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of maintaining a Royal Air Force detachment in Belize in 1989–90 is £11 million.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average annual running costs of(a) a Buccaneer strike/attack squadron, (b) a Jaguar offensive support squadron, (c) a Nimrod maritime patrol squadron and (d) a Tornado F3 air defence squadron.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The approximate annual running cost of a Buccaneer strike/attack squadron is £33·74 million; for a Jaguar offensive support squadron £30·63 million; for a Nimrod maritime patrol squadron £35·33 million; and for a Tornado F3 air defence squadron £49·76 million.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of(a) a regular Army
  74
  soldier, (b) a Territorial Army soldier, (c) a Royal Navy sailor, (d) a Royal Naval Reserve sailor, (e) a Royal Air Force airman and (f) a Royal Auxiliary Air Force airman.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the figures for the average annual running costs of a Tornado GR1 squadron and a Challenger regiment provided on page 48 of the 4th report of the Defence Committee, HC 383, Session 1988–89, include both units based in the United Kingdom and those in West Germany;

  (2) whether the figures for the average annual running costs of units provided on page 48 of the 4th report of the Defence Committee, HC 383, Session 1988–89, include those Royal Navy units undergoing refit or on standby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current annual running cost of(a) an armoured regiment, (b) an infantry battalion and (c) an artillery field regiment stationed in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what is the current annual running cost of (a) an armoured regiment, (b) an infantry battalion, (c) an artillery field regiment and (d) an Army Air Corps regiment stationed with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Running costs vary according to a unit's composition and its precise task at the time. Running costs for 1989–90, to the nearest £ million, are as follows:

  British Army of the Rhine £ million

  United Kingdom £ million

  Armoured regiment

  13

  13

  Infantry battalion

  15

  11 to 13

  Artillery field regiment

  13 to 16

  14

  Army Air Corps regiment

  21

  —

  These figures are at current prices. They do not include civilian support costs.

  Military Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the combined acreage of land used for military training in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military training in Scotland takes place on 24,659 acres of land in Ministry of Defence ownership. In addition we have training rights, in some cases very limited, over a further 173,280 acres.

  Harrier GR5
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR5s have been delivered to date.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A total of 57 Harrier GR5s have been delivered. This figures includes two prototypes.

  Nimrod AEW
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which year the first Nimrod AEW aircraft was originally intended to come into service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Nimrod AEW should have entered RAF service for training in 1982 and for operations in 1984.

  IUKADGE Command and Control
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the exact amount of the cost implications of the delay to the introduction of the IUKADGE command and control system, referred to in his answer of 26 June 1989,Official Report, column 370.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member's earlier question on this subject,Official Report, 6 July 1989, column 266.

  AWACS
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the E-3 AWACS programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The E-3 AWACS programme is proceeding in accordance with the schedule announced to the House of Commons in 1986. Delivery of the first aircraft will be made in early 1991.

  Foxhunter Radar
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Foxhunter radar yet performs according to the original specifications given when it was ordered.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Work on improving Foxhunter is well in hand. Radars to an agreed interim standard continue to be delivered for installation in the Tornado ADV by the RAF, providing an operational capability superior to that of the equipment being replaced. These will shortly be followed by radars to the full technical standard.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about growth in expenditure on the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland has grown from £1,064 million in 1979–80 to a planned £3,064 million in 1990–91, an increase of 36 per cent. in real terms.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce regulations to prevent the use of information for purposes other than those associated with the management or collection of the community charge, which has been disclosed to a charging authority by a community charges registration officer for the purpose associated with the community charge; what other duties there are for a community charge registration officer or charging authority to use or disclose community charge data for other purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The community charges register is available for inspection to the extent specified and for the purposes set out in section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in the 76
  Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change these arrangements.

  Section 20C of the 1987 Act which was inserted by the 1989 Act requires community charges registration officers to supply to the Secretary of State, on request, information that was obtained by them for the purpose of carrying out their functions, provided that the information is not personal information as defined in that section. The section also provides that regulations may permit registration officers to supply such information to any person on request and may charge a prescribed fee for doing so. No regulations under this section have yet been made.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of those schools in Strathclyde region which are eligible to apply for self-governing status.

  Mr. Lang
  Any education authority school, other than a nursery school, for which a school board is established is eligible to call a ballot of parents on self-governing status. Information on which individual schools have boards is not held centrally, but provisional figures for Strathclyde suggest that almost all secondary schools, nine out of 10 primary schools and half the special schools in the region are eligible.

  Legal Reforms
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his reforms for(a) administration of estates and (b) multi-disciplinary practices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend received 27 responses to his 1989 consultation paper "The Legal Profession in Scotland" which made reference to the confirmation of executors which is the only part of the administration of estates reserved to solicitors. He received 24 responses to his proposals for multi-disciplinary practices as set out in his 1987 discussion document "The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland". He has also received a number of representations about the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which relate to confirmation of executors and multi-disciplinary practices.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has conducted into the effect of the proposed legal reforms on rural practices.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has conducted into the effect of the proposed legal reforms on rural practices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 January 1990.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has received to his proposals for multi-disciplinary practices.
  77
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend invited views on proposals to remove the existing statutory barriers which prevent solicitors from entering into multi-disciplinary practices in his consultative paper "The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland", which was published in November 1987. Twenty-four organisations and individuals, mainly from the legal, financial and property sectors, submitted responses.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met members of the Scottish Law Society to discuss legal reform.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets members of the Law Society of Scotland from time to time, both formally and informally, for discussions on a wide range of topics. The last such formal occasion was his address to the Society's special conference on his policy statement "The Scottish Legal Profession: The Way Forward" on 23 October 1989.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received from Scottish-based organisations regarding conveyancing reform.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received from Scottish-based organisations regarding conveyancing reform.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Thirty Scottish-based organisations, mainly from the legal, financial and 78
  property sectors, responded to the proposals on conveyancing in the consultation paper "The Legal Profession in Scotland", published in March 1989.

  Nurses
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many student nurses qualified in the summer of 1989; and how many of them now have nursing posts within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the period 1 May to 30 September 1989 1,111 students in Scotland qualified for registration as first level nurses. Information on how many of them entered the National Health Service is not held centrally.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the regrading of nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Nurses in clinical practice were regraded with effect from 1 April 1988. The new grading structure for senior nurse education posts was introduced with effect from 1 April 1989. A new grading structure for senior nurse management posts is currently being negotiated with the staff side.

  Illegal Poisoning
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been involving the use of poisons against wildlife in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Disability
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those disability organisations he has met in the past year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not met formally any of the disability organisations in the past year, but he launched the Scottish Council on Disability's computerised information service on 19 May 1989 and on 30 May 1989 he launched from the esplanade of Edinburgh castle the International Spinal Research Trust's "PUSH-2" event—a five-week wheelchair push to London by three young paraplegics. On 1 December 1989 my hon. Friend the Minister of State opened the Scottish Council on Disability's new mobile advice centre. On 22 January 1990 he opened a conference on care in the community at which disabled organisations were represented.

  Scottish Office officials are in regular contact with many of the organisations representing people with disabilities.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional budget allocation he has made for provision for the disabled in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for services for the disabled is a matter for health boards and local authorities within the resources available to them. Provision for hospital and community health expenditure by health boards has been increased by 8·3 per cent. and revenue support grants to local authorities by 7·5 per cent. for next year.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has any unit or civil servant specifically allocated to the task of ensuring provision for the disabled in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One branch of the Scottish Home and Health Department has a co-ordinating role for matters relating to the physically disabled but functional topics are dealt with by officials in the various Departments which comprise the Scottish Office.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of electors on the current electoral registers, published on 15 February 1990, in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information, which will be published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its EL series of monitors, is not yet available centrally.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of electors on the current electoral registers, published on 15 February 1990, in each regional electoral division and in each district ward in each of the local government areas of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information will be available in April. I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready, and place a copy in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are homeless in each of the district council areas.
  80
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The only figures available relate to the number of applicants assessed as homeless by local authorities under part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which will not be equal to the numbers currently homeless. These figures, as recorded by local authorities, are given in the following table:

  Applicants assessed as homeless under Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 by district, Scotland, 1988–89

  District

  Number

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  6

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  21

  Roxburgh

  29

  Tweeddale

  n/a

  Central

  Clackmannan

  17

  Falkirk

  458

  Stirling

  158

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  48

  Nithsdale

  144

  Stewartry

  21

  Wigtown

  55

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  254

  Kirkcaldy

  258

  North East Fife

  88

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  625

  Banff and Buchan

  111

  Gordon

  36

  Kincardine and Deeside

  8

  Moray

  41

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  —

  Caithness

  12

  Inverness

  51

  Lochaber

  22

  Nairn

  16

  Ross and Cromarty

  18

  Skye and Lochalsh

  20

  Sutherland

  8

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  355

  Edinburgh

  1,167

  Midlothian

  87

  West Lothian

  119

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  96

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  26

  Clydebank

  632

  Clydesdale

  8

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  89

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  38

  Cunninghame

  147

  Dumbarton

  461

  East Kilbride

  132

  Eastwood

  7

  Glasgow

  1,312

  Hamilton

  82

  Inverclyde

  111

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  147

  Kyle and Carrick

  294

  Monklands

  214

  Motherwell

  121

  Renfrew

  261

  Strathkelvin

  91

  Tayside

  Angus

  177

  Dundee

  403

  Perth and Kinross

  98

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  n/a

  Shetland Islands

  63

  Western Isles

  37

  Off Licences
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received calling for the Sunday opening of off-sales licensed premises; and if he will list the organisations making these representations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has received 50 representations from organisations and from individuals in favour of allowing off-sales licensed premises to open on Sunday in Scotland. The organisations making these representations were as follows:

  Strathclyde Licensed Trade Association

  British Retailers Association

  Delting Community Council

  Arbroath Community Council

  Lossiemouth Community Council

  East Lothian Licensing Board

  Kirriemuir Community Council

  Wigtown Licensing Board

  St. Andrew's and Deerness Community Council

  Law Society of Scotland

  Midlothian Licensing Board

  Headteachers' Association of Scotland

  Falkirk Licensing Board

  Tollcross Community Council

  Annandale and Eskdale District Council

  Eskbank Trading Post

  Clackmannan District Council

  Clydebank District Council

  North East Fife District Licensing Board

  Scottish Licensed Trade Association

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Licensing Board

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  Kincardine and Deeside District Council

  Salsburgh Community Council

  Greenhills Community Council

  Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland

  Association of Scottish Police Superintendents

  Stakis plc

  City of Dundee Licensing Board

  Kyle and Carrick District Council

  Stirling District Council

  Midlothian District Council

  Berwickshire District Council

  MacArthur Stewart and Company

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Stewartry District Council and Licensing Board

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Edinburgh District Licensing Board

  South Ronaldsay and Burray Community Council

  Banff and Buchan District Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Scottish Grocers' Federation

  Scotch Whisky Association

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures on the number of National Health Service sight tests carried out between 1 April and 31 December 1989 will shortly be available. The results of a survey on the total number of sight tests carried out in Scotland in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available by the early summer.

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for dental checks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of courses of dental treatment scheduled for payment in Scotland in the calendar year 1989 was 3,144,000. The corresponding figure for 1988 was 3,054,000. There is no evidence that the introduction on 1 January 1989 of the charge for a dental examination has deterred people from seeking dental treatment.

  Police
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of police officers to population in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Dundee, (c) Edinburgh and (d) Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the ratios set out in the table no account has been taken of police offices, for example, engaged on CID and traffic duties who have responsibilities over areas wider than those specified, and the figures do not provide a sound basis for comparing the level of policing provided in the areas concerned.

  Area

  Ratio

  Aberdeen

  1:433

  Dundee

  1:406

  Edinburgh

  1:343

  Glasgow

  1:298

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of police officers to population in Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Irvine, Livingston and East Kilbride.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the ratios set out in the table, no account has been taken of police officers, for example, engaged on CID and traffic duties who have responsibilities over areas wider than those specified, and the figures do not provide a sound basis for comparing the level of policing provided in the areas concerned.

  Area

  Ratio

  Cumbernauld

  1:666

  Glenrothes

  1:459

  Irvine

  1:411

  Livingston

  1:668

  East Kilbride

  1:711

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State of Scotland when he next expects to meet the trade unions representing ambulance staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such meeting arranged.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State last visited Cumbernauld; and if he will make a statement.
  83
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I paid a housing visit to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council on Friday 16 February. During the visit I announced a supplementary HRA capital allocation for 1989–90 for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council of £0·200 million. I also noted the district council's representations about its provisional housing capital allocations for 1990–91 and undertook to keep these in mind when final capital allocations for housing are determined in March.

  Domestic rateable subjects at 1 April 1988

  Bands of Rateable Value

  Eastwood

  Renfrew

  Scotland

  £0–£300

  Number

  20

  3,018

  92,208

  Rateable Value (£)

  4,769

  690,126

  18,536,701

  £301–£600

  Number

  1,535

  32,981

  977,803

  Rateable Value (£)

  797,321

  16,298,156

  469,876,982

  £601–£900

  Number

  6,065

  31,647

  690,653

  Rateable Value (£)

  4,626,100

  22,776,083

  490,089,150

  £901–£1,200

  Number

  6,961

  7,958

  189,542

  Rateable Value (£)

  7,240,368

  8,116,213

  195,189,046

  £1,201–£1,500

  Number

  3,160

  2,770

  72,356

  Rateable Value (£)

  4,203,661

  3,680,946

  95,936,291

  Over £1,500

  Number

  3,608

  1,985

  45,661

  Rateable Value (£)

  6,905,634

  3,543,330

  83,352,425

  Crof houses/Separately assessed caravans

  Number

  7

  81

  21,501

  Rateable Value (£)

  1,617

  27,446

  4,848,297

  Total

  Number

  21,356

  80,440

  2,089,724

  Rateable Value (£)

  23,779,470

  55,132,300

  1,357,828,892

  British Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an economic assessment of the total impact on jobs and industrial production of the closure of British Steel's production operations in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  British Steel has put forward no proposals for the closure of its production operations in Scotland, and Sir Robert Scholey has recently confirmed that his December 1987 statement on the future of the Scottish steel plants still stands. The closure of British Steel plants in Scotland would, of course, have serious consequences for the economy of Lanarkshire in particular.

  Electricity
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the relative prices of generating electricity expressed in pence per kilowatt hour of the different means of power generation available to the Scottish electricity boards;

  (2) what are the latest cost estimates from the South of Scotland Electricity Board for advanced gas-cooled reactor generated power from Scottish power stations;

  (3) what are the latest price estimates prepared by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, expressed in pence per kilowatt hour, of advanced gas-cooled reactor

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide for the districts of Eastwood and Renfrew, and for Scotland, the number and rateable value of houses, etc., immediately prior to the introduction of the community charge with rateable values in the following bands:(a) up to £300, (b) £301 to £600, (c) £601 to £900, (d) £901 to £1,200, (e) £1,201 to £1,500 and (f) over £1,500.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is set out in the table.

  generated power from Hunterston B and Torness power stations; and what are the assumptions on which these estimates are based.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the generation costs and the quantity of electricity sent out from the principal forms of power generation used by the Scottish electricity boards is contained in their annual reports. Details of expenditure and output relating to individual power stations are operational and commercial matters for the boards.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made on the impact on the Scottish economy of proposed gas-powered electricity generation stations located in the north-east of England; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made on the likely impact on electricity exports from Scotland of the proposed projects to build gas-powered electricity generating capacity in the north-east of England;

  (3) what meetings or discussions he has held with the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board on its participation in the Neptune consortium; on what date he first learned of the project; if the board sought his approval for its involvement; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) when he was informed by the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board of British Steel's participation in the Neptune consortium.
  85
  Mr. Lang
  I welcome the recent reports of consideration being given to possible developments on Teesside involving the exploitation of natural gas available from the North sea. Such developments are clearly of enormous importance for the United Kingdom economy as a whole and strongly indicate the Government's objective of encouraging competition in both electricity supply and in gas production.

  The possible involvement of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board in one of these developments would utilise its long experience in design, construction and operation of major power stations, such as Peterhead, where the board has already taken the lead in gas-fired generation. and provide long-term employment for its skilled staff. In addition, Scottish-based companies will be well placed to participate in the supply of major components for construction of the plant. There is, therefore, every reason to suppose that the Scottish economy will benefit from these opportunities.

  I understand that these developments would involve supplies of electricity dedicated to certain large consumers. The potential for the Scottish electricity industry to offer supplies to the system in England and Wales by means of the transmission grid interconnector therefore remains.

  Discussions on these developments are at a very early stage but, given the lengthy gestation period for projects of this nature, it is appropriate for the board now to be considering opportunities to expand its business after privatisation.

  The North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board informed me earlier this month of its intention to consider its involvement in the potential development and of various aspects of the development, including the identity of possible large customers. The proposals are not yet at a stage at which any formal consents are required and consequently no approvals have been sought.

  Buses
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to ensure fair competition between competing employee-based bids under paragraph 15 of the Scottish Bus Group disposal programme he has prepared under section 1 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The disposal programme sets out the basis on which the Scottish Transport Group is required to consider bids, including the information required in bids and the basis on which a preference will be given to bids involving employee participation. My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the arrangements will ensure fair competition between all bids.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to ensure sustained and fair competition under section 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 where there is an association between the management of neighbouring companies after privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The basis on which bids for Scottish Bus Group companies will be considered is set out in the disposal programme which my right hon. and learned Friend recently published under the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989. Copies of the disposal programme 86
  are available in the House of Commons Library. Any mergers between bus companies after privatisation will be subject to competition law.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he intends to undertake with employees in relation to privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group where there are competing bids involving a controlling interest by employees for a particular subsidiary.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Transport Group to implement the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Group. The disposal programme makes it clear that a price preference will be given to bids involving a controlling interest by employees, and that there could be more than one such employee-based bid. The group is required to seek my right hon. and learned Friend's consent for sales.

  Courts
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Lord Advocate will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for East Lothian dated 4 January about reporting restrictions on a case at Haddington sheriff court.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be writing to the hon. Member shortly.

  Child Care
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that people and their spouses running private facilities for children are vetted to record any criminal records.

  Mr. Lang
  Regional and islands authorities are responsible under the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 for registering child care establishments and childminders. Enhanced arrangements for vetting those who have substantial access to children were introduced in September 1989 and applicants for registration as private child care providers will be vetted for criminal convictions by the Scottish Criminal Records Office at the request of the regional or islands authority as registration authority. The authority also has discretion to request checks on other persons who may have substantial access to children.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that staff employed by private security firms are vetted to record any criminal records.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for ensuring that appropriate background checks are made on employees rests with individual companies.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new dental hospital for Edinburgh is expected to come into commission.
  87
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This depends upon the outcome of Lothian health board's forthcoming appraisal of possible sites.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Office is prepared to provide the necessary earmarked capital and recurrent expenditure to support the university of Edinburgh's postgraduate dental institute, for which proposals were put to him in December.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have already made it clear that the Government will meet the capital cost of the proposed institute. The revenue aspects will require detailed consultation with all the parties involved, once we have the results of the appraisal to be conducted by Lothian health board.

  Child Workers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that a survey be conducted of the extent to which children are missing their education through working in paid employment during school hours or through tiredness due to hours worked outwith school hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: Children in employment are protected by the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, which defines the lowest age (13) at which a child may be employed, precludes employment during school hours and limits the hours and times of day a child may work. In addition, education authorities are empowered to make byelaws imposing further restraints. The existing safeguards, if properly applied, are sufficient to prevent problems of school absence or tiredness and I do not think a survey would be helpful.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present number of(a) male and (b) female higher education students in Scotland; and how many of them come from low income families.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: In 1988–89 there were 46,085 male and 38,883 female undergraduate and postgraduate students in higher education in Scotland. The family income of these students is not available.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been recorded since 1988 in Scotland; and if he will list them by regional areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was made notifiable on 21 June 1988. To date 277 confirmed cases have been recorded in Scotland. A breakdown of cases on a regional basis is as follows:

  Number

  Borders

  10

  Central

  12

  Dumfries

  50

  88

  Number

  Fife

  12

  Grampian

  60

  Highland

  17

  Lothian

  9

  Orkney

  4

  Shetland

  1

  Strathclyde

  81

  Tayside

  21

  Milk Production
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cows are registered for milk production in Scotland; and how many in Renfrewshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: At June 1989 there were 363,458 dairy cows in Scotland of which 246,570 were producing milk and 8,735 dairy cows in the old administrative county of Renfrewshire of which 5,261 were producing milk.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the milk production for Scotland in 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what is the milk production for farms in Renfrewshire in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: Milk production figures for Scotland and the old administrative county of Renfrewshire are detailed in the table. These figures relate to the period, 1 April to 31 March for each of the years concerned.

  Scotland million litres

  Renfrewshire million litres

  1986–87

  1,301·2

  42·8

  1987–88

  1,235·0

  40·0

  1988–89

  1,192·9

  39·2

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration was given in the calculation of the allocation of funds to Lothian health board for 1990–91 to(a) clearing the deficit from the current year and (b) avoiding the creation of a new deficit in 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: The prime determinant in health boards' allocations is the population for whom the board has to provide hospital and community health services. Account is taken of factors such as the age, sex and morbidity of each board's population. Allowance is also made for the movement of patients between boards and the provision of certain services by only some boards. Boards are expected to plan services within their annual allocations.

  Woodlands
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the genuinely native pinewoods in the Forestry Commission's ownership which have been subjected to clear felling or underplanting with either non-native pine or alien conifers in the last 30 years, giving areas of pinewood so treated in each case and the extent of underplanted native pine that has subsequently been cleared of alien conifers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Open areas within the native pinewoods

  89
  have been planted over the last 30 years with pines grown from both native and non-native seed, and with other conifer species. The areas within each pinewood which have been planted with pines from non-native seed or with other conifers, and the areas which have subsequently been cleared, are given in the following table.

  Name of wood

  Area planted (hectares)

  Area cleared (hectares)

  Inshriach

  18·0

  —

  Glenmore

  3·0

  All

  Glenmoriston

  15·0

  —

  Glen Affric

  172·0

  17·0

  Glen Cannich

  123·0

  3·0

  Guisachan and Cougie

  72·0

  —

  Achnashellach

  10·0

  —

  Glen Garry

  11·5

  1·5

  Arkaig and Mallie

  58·0

  —

  Glen Loy

  1·5

  All

  Callop

  1·5

  All

  Rannoch

  169·0

  8·0

  Glen Orchy

  0·5

  All

  No record has been kept of the areas of native pine which have been felled in these woods.

ENERGY

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the date on which the electricity generating industry of England and Wales will achieve the 12,000 MW flue gas desulphurisation programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are determined to comply with the requirements of the EC large combustion plants directive. The retrofitting of Drax power station is already under way and further retrofits are in prospect.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress made in the programme to fit British power station capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Contracts have already been placed for the installation of FGD equipment at the 4 GW Drax power station and further retrofits are in prospect.

  Oil Production
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association (UKOOA) regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the serious accident rate on the United Kingdom continental shelf and the Norwegian sector, expressed as a rate per 1,000 employees in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Figures for the United Kingdom continental shelf are as follows:
  90

  Year

  Serious accidents per 1,000 employees

  1985

  3·5

  1986

  4·5

  1987

  2·1

  1988

  2·9

  1989

  2·8

  The statistics for 1985–88 appear in the reports on the development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom. The figure given for 1989 will be included in the next report. The figures relate to injuries to persons but do not include deaths.

  Comparable information for the Norwegian sector of the North sea is not available.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many new offshore fields were approved by his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  During 1989 my Department gave consent to plans for the development of six new oil fields and three new gas fields on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total loss of oil and gas production on the United Kingdom continental shelf as a result of unprogrammed shutdowns since 5 July 1988.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Some 30 million tonnes of oil production has been deferred as a result of major unprogrammed shutdowns between July 1988 and the end of January 1990. The amount of gas production associated with this is very small and the long-term loss of both oil and gas will be minimal.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what increase or decrease he expects in the output of North sea oil in the current year.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what increase or decrease he expects in the output of North sea oil in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I expect an increased recovery of output of North sea oil this year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Energy what progress was made during 1989 in reducing the number of fallow blocks in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress was made during 1989 in reducing the number of fallow blocks in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The number of fallow blocks has been reduced during 1989 from 125 to just under 90, a fall of over a quarter, and prospects for a further significant reduction this year look good. I shall continue to press this initiative with determination.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much employment in the offshore oil and gas industry has increased since 1986.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the change in employment in the offshore oil and gas industry since 1986.
  91
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the change in employment in the offshore oil and gas industry since 1986.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Employment in the offshore oil and gas industry has risen from 22,300 in 1986 to 30,700 in 1989, an increase of almost 40 per cent.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many wells were drilled on the United Kingdom's continental shelf in the 1980s and in the 1970s.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many wells were drilled on the United Kingdom's continental shelf(a) in the 1980s and (b) in the 1970s.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many wells were drilled on the United Kingdom's continental shelf in the 1980s and in the 1970s.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The total numbers of exploration, appraisal and development wells drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf in the periods 1970–79 and 1980–89 were 1,200 and 2,703 respectively

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of Nuclear Electric; and what matters he discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have met the chairman of Nuclear Electric on a number of occasions to discuss aspects of the nuclear industry.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the earliest date on which Nuclear Electric could operate without any form of Treasury guarantee.

  Mr. Baldry
  Work on Nuclear Electric's financial structure is continuing.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much spending on the promotion of energy efficiency has risen since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office in the current year is £15 million, six times the level of spending in 1979–80 of £2·4 million.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to meet the Association for the Conservation of Energy.

  Coal Production
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of production of coal from deep mines in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  British Coal tells me that, so far this year, deep-mined output in Scotland is nearly 1·6 million tonnes, broadly the same as the output achieved in the 92
  same period last year, but at a productivity rate 75 per cent. higher. This is a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate both mineworkers and management.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications for renewable sources of energy have been received for inclusion under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications for renewable sources of energy have been received for inclusion under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The area boards have received about 300 applications.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how the development of renewable sources of energy will be encouraged after the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how the development of renewable sources of energy will be encouraged after the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  After privatisation the Department will continue to undertake a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies. Over the next few years expenditure on the programme is expected to increase significantly. Funding will rise by 13·5 per cent. to over £20 million in 1990–91.

  Renewables will also benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation. The area boards have already received around 300 applications for inclusion in the initial obligation. An additional 600 MW of capacity within the obligation reserved exclusively for renewables will be introduced in a series of tranches during the 1990s. If it should appear desirable in the light of experience, the additional tranches could be brought forward or the total increased.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the percentage increase in electricity prices for both domestic and industrial consumers between March 1988 and May 1990; and by how much these increases exceeded the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Between the first quarter of 1988 and the fourth quarter of 1989, the latest period for which information is available, domestic electricity prices increased by 16 per cent. in current terms. That is an increase of 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator of 12 per cent.

  Between the first quarter of 1988 and the third quarter of 1989, the latest period for which information is available, industrial prices increased by 4 per cent. in current terms, 7 per cent. below the rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator of 10 per cent.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of(a) domestic and (b) non-domestic electricity prices in 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  93
  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity prices are a matter for the industry and I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 12 February.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the members of the British Iron and Steel Producers Association to discuss electricity prices for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  BISPA is a member of the energy intensive users group which I and my Department meet regularly.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has undertaken regarding the level of electricity prices for 1990–91.

  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity prices are a matter for the industry. However, I frequently meet the representatives of the electricity industry and a wide range of issues are discussed.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in domestic electricity prices since 1984.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in domestic electricity prices since 1984.

  Mr. Baldry
  Domestic electricity prices between the fourth quarters of 1984 and 1989 resulted in a reduction of 8 per cent. in real terms.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about British Coal's proposals to develop opencast sites.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received a number of representations about opencasting in general, and about particular proposals to develop individual sites.

  British Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chief inspector of the nuclear installations inspectorate; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Although I meet the chief inspector of Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate from time to time, I have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Officials of my Department are, of course, in regular contact with the nuclear installations inspectorate on matters relating to nuclear safety.

  European Community Energy Ministers
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to attend a meeting of the European Economic Community Council of Energy Ministers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The next meeting of the European Community Council of Energy Ministers is due to take place on 21 May 1990. Either I or my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) will attend.

  British Gas
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Gas; and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Gas regularly and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the level of investment by British Gas since it was privatised.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This is a matter for British Gas plc.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make it his policy to exempt employees of the electricity supply industry from the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986, when discussing financial projects for their industry with bona fide journalists and academics engaged in studying the industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Electricity Act 1989 has not amended the Financial Services Act 1986 to exempt employees of the electricity supply industry from its provisions when discussing financial projects for the industry with bona fide journalists and academics engaged in studying the industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy sees no reason why such employees should be so exempted in future.

  Amoco Application
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to make a decision on Amoco's proposals for a central area transmission system.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to make a decision on Amoco's proposals for a central area transmission system.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 19 February to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan,Official Report, col. 528.

  Director-General of Electricity Supply
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Director-General of Electricity Supply; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the Director-General of Electricity Supply from time to time to discuss aspects of electricity supply industry regulation.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current progress of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government intend to implement the new structure of the industry on 31 March and to complete its privatisation within this Parliament.

  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chief executive of Neighbourhood Energy Action; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action from time to time to discuss matters relating to the improvement of energy efficiency in low-income households.

  North Sea Gas
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of the remaining reserves of North sea gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Gas reserves at the end of 1988 were estimated to be 1,195 billion cubic metres at the proven plus probable level. The estimate for reserves remaining at the end of 1989 will be presented to Parliament in the 1990 Brown Book due to be published in the spring.

  National Power
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chief executive of National Power; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chief executive of National Power regularly to discuss many aspects of his business.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Health and Safety Executive; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I met representatives of the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive in December last year. Officials of my Department meet Executive personnel on a regular basis.

  Gas Standing Charges
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the trend in standing charges since the privatisation of the gas industry.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the trend in standing charges since the privatisation of the gas industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Standing charges are a matter for British Gas plc. However, I understand that standing charges have fallen in real terms by 19 per cent. since privatisation.

  Electricity Council
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to meet the chairman of the Electricity Council; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of the Electricity Council regularly to discuss various matters.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of improvement in energy efficiency since 1979(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European countries.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) earlier today.

  Landfill Gas Schemes
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) earlier today.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives the Energy Efficiency Office is taking to promote the use of combined heat and power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is actively promoting combined heat and power through the best practice programme. In particular my Energy Efficiency Office has planned a series of regional CHP marketing events to be held in 1990.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to reduce acid rain emissions from coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are determined to implement in full the EC large combustion plants directive. This directive commits the United Kingdom to reduce its emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from existing plants, such as fossil fuelled power stations, but does not specify the means by which this has to be done. Retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment will play an important part. Contracts have already been placed for 4GW of FGD equipment at Drax power station, and further retrofits are in prospect. However, other measures, such as the burning of low-sulphur fuels, including gas, are likely to contribute.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the date on which the fossil fuel or nuclear levy will fall to 5 per cent. or less.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) earlier today.

  Offshore Oil
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met trade union representatives involved in the offshore industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 December 1989 at column 99.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any representations concerning trade union representation for offshore workers in the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department received a number of representations from hon. Members and others and consulted trade unions fully before the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 were made. The regulations came into force on 18 September 1989.

  I have also been in correspondence with MSF on trade union recognition offshore which is a matter for employers and the particular trade unions concerned. I will he meeting members of MSF and its parliamentary committee soon.

  Department of Energy (Future Role)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he is undertaking of the continuing need for a Department of Energy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 15 February at column 361.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further plans he has to privatise the activities of his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  We plan to privatise the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and, in due course, British Coal. I have at present no further plans of this kind.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what savings his Department has made in its expenditure following the privatisation of industries which were his Department's responsibility.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As a direct result of privatisations already carried through, my Department has saved 20 staff out of a total of around 1,000. The associated savings in administrative costs currently amount to around £400,000 a year.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of the number of elderly people who would benefit significantly from energy conservation measures in their homes; and what average saving in annual energy costs per household might be achieved.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The installation of cost-effective energy efficiency measures could improve comfort and reduce fuel bills in most households including those where the occupants are elderly. It is estimated that savings of 20 per cent. or more could typically be achieved through the adoption of straightforward measures.
  98
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much spending on the promotion of energy efficiency has risen since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office in the current year is £15 million—six times the level of spending in 1978–79 of £2·4 million.

  Magnox
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of nuclear installations to discuss the future operational life expectancy of the Magnox nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  On present plans I expect to meet the Director General of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and the chief inspector of HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate in May. Officials in my Department have regular contact with personnel from the Health and Safety Executive's NII.

  Friends of the Earth
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet representatives of Friends of the Earth; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I met representatives of Friends of the Earth last October. I have no present plans for a further meeting.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current Government policy in respect of(a) the transportation by land and air of nuclear waste or spent fuel of all grades in or over the United Kingdom and (b) the importation of other nations' nuclear wastes for reprocessing or storage in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The transport of all radioactive materials is allowed only subject to very rigorous requirements. Regulations are laid down by the Department of Transport and these are based on internationally agreed standards of safety recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The containers approved for radioactive materials are designed in such a way that there would be no significant radiological hazard even in a severe accident. Therefore, safety does not depend on means of transport or route employed.

  Nuclear wastes are not imported into the United Kingdom. Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes arising. The Government intend that reprocessing contracts with overseas customers should continue to contain such options, that the options should be exercised and that wastes should be returned.

  THORP
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has regarding the negotiation of a contract between British Nuclear Fuels plc and the German company VEBA to reprocess German nuclear waste at the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield,
  99
  Cumbria; whether any United Kingdom or West German Government agency is acting as an intermediary between the two companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The contractual negotiations that have taken place directly between British Nuclear Fuels plc and several German utilities are a commercial matter for the companies involved. They relate to reprocessing at Sellafield of spent fuel from German reactors, not of waste. In line with Government policy, the contracts, when concluded, will provide for the return to the Federal Republic of Germany of wastes arising from the reprocessing.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current expected cost of the THORP nuclear waste reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria; and what is the anticipated date on which it will begin operations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The expected total cost of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is some £1·8 billion. British Nuclear Fuels plc has secured business worth up to £5 billion which will pay for its investment in the plant. The fuel receipt and storage facility is operational now and commercial reprocessing is expected to begin in late 1992. The facility will reprocess spent fuel and not waste.

  Energy Prices
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to allow energy prices to be determined by market forces.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Prices of petroleum products are already determined by market forces. It is the Government's policy that where systems of regulation exist they are designed to promote competition and over a period of years to produce prices which reflect the appropriate market forces. The Government seek to ensure that the price of energy reflects the true costs of production including a fair return on investment.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his most up-to-date assessment of the cost of construction, commissioning, operating and reprocessing spent fuel rods arising at the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor nuclear power station, following his decision to cancel the three other proposed pressurised water reactor stations;
  100
  (2) what is his most up-to-date assessment of the effect of his decision to cancel the three other proposed pressurised water reactors on the cost of proceeding with Sizewell B.

  Mr. Baldry
  The costs of Sizewell B are a matter for Nuclear Electric. The company will be providing my Department with a latest estimate for the construction cost of Sizewell B when they have completed their current review.

  Miners (Union Contributions)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of his discussions with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers on 23 January; whether he discussed the method of payment of union contributions of members of the National Union of Mineworkers in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A number of matters were discussed when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers on 23 January. No reference was made during the meeting to the method of payment of union contributions.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the impact of the future operational life expectancy of the Dungeness B, Hartlepool and Heysham I advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations on the level of the nuclear or fossil-fuel levy over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  As my right hon. Friend announced on 12 February, the non-fossil fuel obligation will be set initially for the period up to 1997–98. No AGR station is planned to close before the end of this period. The life expectancy of AGR stations will not therefore affect the level of the levy up to 1997–98.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is available to him as to the comparative costs of nuclear power at(a) Dungeness and (b) Torness.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for the Nuclear Electric division of CEGB and for the SSEB. I have therefore asked the chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Money Laundering
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is evidence that money from illegal drug dealing is being laundered in the United Kingdom.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, money laundering is an international problem from which the United Kingdom is not immune. However, the UK is well to the fore in measures to address this threat.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. It seems that the strong action taken in the United States has caused drug dealers to turn their attention to the United Kingdom. Have all the relevant financial institutions in this country been directed to check the bona fides of clients lodging large sums of money with them? It is vital that everything possible should be done to support the international effort against illegal drug dealing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House concurs with the last statement of my noble friend. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 requires all financial institutions to report to the authorities details of any transactions—cash or otherwise—which they know or suspect to be linked to drug trafficking. I can tell my noble friend that in November 1989 the Bank of England wrote to all authorised banks reminding them of their responsibilities under the Act. The Building Societies Commission issued a prudential notice through building societies in July 1989 and drew attention to the relevant provisions of the Act.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is often difficult for banks and financial institutions to identify these transactions without further references? Can the noble Earl give the House an indication of the degree to which the Government themselves assist these financial institutions by providing them with the intelligence that the Government are able to obtain from the FBI in America, from Interpol and from their own resources within the DTI?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the UK is participating fully in what is known as the Financial Action Task Force which the noble Lord will know resulted from the Paris economic summit last July. That force recommends improvements to measures
506
against money laundering. One of the matters under discussion is how best governments can help guide the banks.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I notice that the Question is limited to the United Kingdom. Perhaps therefore it is not right to ask for an immediate answer. Has my noble friend noticed the allegation which has been made and which has been reported this morning about the use of Gibraltar for such purposes? Will he kindly look into that matter as well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I noticed the allegation in the newspaper today. As my noble and learned friend may know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in Spain at the moment engaged in negotiations in Madrid.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people in the know are of the opinion that there is not enough co-operation and exchange of intelligence on this subject? Do Her Majesty's Government feel that it might be possible to increase the degree of co-operation now lacking? That could make a big contribution to the fight against this venomous problem.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said: that we need a constant exchange of information. This is improving year by year with the action task force. Under the arrangements that the Home Secretary has with Europe and other countries, and as the noble Lord will know from the Customs point of view, as a result of the latest agreements, we have been able to detect drugs coming even through places such as Russia.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we from these Benches supported to the full the 1986 legislation? We shall be more than happy to support any further legislation which the Government may see fit to bring forward in order to stop this evil trade. Is he further aware that it is not just the ordinary financial institutions that appear to be indulging—obviously quite innocently—in the laundering? It is mainly the building societies now. Is the noble Earl aware of the means that are being employed to see that those who manage building societies are apprised not only of the 1986 legislation but of the laundering that is taking place through their medium?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in the first part of his question, and for his support for the action taken on that front. I refer the noble Lord to the reply that I gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I mentioned the Building Societies Commission issuing a notice. I can also tell the noble Lord that the Building Societies Association, as a result of that notice, subsequently circulated guidance to its members on the practical steps which building

507
societies should take to combat money laundering. However, if the noble Lord has any particular point, perhaps he will let me know and I shall pass it on.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that one of the problems in London is the activities of foreign banks? Is he aware that that problem was referred to in this House during a debate on a recent piece of government legislation concerning this matter? Is the Minister further aware that his honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told me that this was a matter exclusively for the Bank of England, notwithstanding the fact that one of the foreign banks has, through its subsidiaries, been convicted in the federal court in Florida of being involved in this unattractive form of business?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the points that the noble Lord raised in an earlier debate on the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill and of the reply that my honourable friend the Economic Secretary gave to the noble Lord. However, if I can help the noble Lord further perhaps he will let me know.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is some concern among the police force that the recent Bill on the sequestration of assets is not being applied by the courts as effectively as it might be? Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, but if it is will he be kind enough to look into the matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the allegation by my noble friend. I had thought that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 was an effective measure against money laundering. The National Drugs Intelligence Unit estimates that confiscation orders exceeding £16 million have been made against the assets of convicted drug traffickers during the three years that the Act has been in place. However, if my noble friend has a particular point on that perhaps he will let me know.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate if Gibraltar was singled out especially in connection with this matter? Will he also bear in mind that areas such as the Netherlands Antilles, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Seychelles are not entirely above suspicion either?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it would be wrong to look at any one country in particular. As I said at the beginning, this is an international problem with which the whole world is involved. It is the responsibility of all governments to take action.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the EC Commission is preparing a draft directive which would make money laundering a criminal offence, will there be any difficulty about accommodating that in UK legislation in due course?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that depends very much on what is in the draft directive, which we have not seen. However, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, the UK is very much to the fore with the legislation it has already enacted whereby money laundering is illegal.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
2.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, if so, what steps they are taking to strengthen and extend it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the United Kingdom is one of the three depositary powers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and naturally we support it. The fourth review conference of the treaty is to be held in Geneva in August and September this year. We are working for its success. We take every suitable opportunity in our contacts with countries not party to the treaty to urge them to accede to it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I welcome the more constructive tone which has characterised this Answer from the replies we received on previous occasions? I take that as a response to the improving international situation in which the Government feel able actively to support this important treaty rather than giving it the kind of lip service which they have perhaps given in the past. In the circumstances, will the Minister undertake to take further steps at the fourth review conference of the treaty which is to take place in August to bring about the certain enforcement of the treaty? There is a general feeling that while the treaty exists in theory, enforcement procedures are lacking. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that something more is done in that respect?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the first part of the question, I should say that as one of the founding fathers, if I may put it like that, of the treaty I do not think that our support for it has ever been in doubt. However, if the noble Lord detects a difference of emphasis, so be it. The review conference to which the noble Lord referred will take place in Geneva in August and September. The initial two preparatory committee meetings which were held in New York last May and in Geneva last September went well. The third preparatory committee meeting will take place in Geneva from 24th April to 4th May. The depositary powers continue to co-ordinate effectively with the aim of ensuring a successful outcome for the review conference, thus strengthening the NPT.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the Government's present attitude towards a comprehensive test ban

509
treaty is, especially against the background of events in Eastern Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I answered a Question on a comprehensive test ban treaty as recently as last November. A comprehensive test ban treaty remains a long-term goal, but progress will be made only by a step-by-step approach which takes account of technical advances in verification as well as progress elsewhere in arms control and the attitude of other states.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in December at the General Assembly of the United Nations 127 nations voted for progress towards a comprehensive ban and only two voted against, of whom the United Kingdom was one? When the noble Lord says he is working for the success of the non-proliferation conference, is he aware that a key to non-proliferation would be the comprehensive banning of nuclear tests?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, for the foreseeable future our security will depend on deterrence based in part on nuclear weapons. We must continue to test our nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and up to date.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that point is of extreme importance and that the view is held widely in the world, and also in this country but not perhaps by the Government, that the test ban treaty is a key to effective non-proliferation and ultimately perhaps to the number of missiles being reduced? Will he give a little further thought to that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much I can add this afternoon or to what I said in answer to the noble Lord's previous Question on the subject in November. It remains our long-term gaol but with certain qualifications.

"The Three Graces"
2.50 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to ensure that the statue by Canova known as The Three Graces is available to public view in Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has been exploring with interested parties a number of proposals and their funding implications. However, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, Save Britain's Heritage has now served a writ for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to take listed building enforcement action. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the case.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I hope that he will not be too intimidated by legislation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Litigation!
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, the important point is that my noble friend should not be intimated by either. Does he agree that The Three Graces represents a major work of the 19th century classical sculpture revival which was commissioned for Britain and should be retained here? Does he further agree that the situation has been dramatically transformed for the better by Mr. Jacob Rothschild's generous and ingenious offer at the weekend involving £8 million? What is the Government's policy regarding that offer? That is not subject either to litigation or court action. May we have a positive response to that offer? In view of this capricious incident, does the Minister agree that the rules governing export of works of art should be reviewed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the views of the noble Lord, Lord St. John, on art and taste are always taken very seriously by the Government. However, I remind my noble friend that the statue was commissioned by the Duke of Bedford of the day rather than for the nation.
It is important to remember that discussions are continuing. Those include discussions with Mr. Jacob Rothschild concerning his proposals. It would not be wise or sensible of me to comment further at this moment.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the temporary export ban is due to expire a fortnight today will the Government consider extending it for a further period in view of the generous offer from Mr. Jacob Rothschild mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John? That is the least they can do.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will no doubt review the date in the light of the judicial review.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, in congratulating Mr. Jacob Rothschild on his magnificent offer. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept it unless they are prepared to come up with the £7–6 million themselves.
Does not this issue raise in an acute form the problem facing our admirable export control system—which we are trying to persuade our European partners to adopt after 1992—with pre-eminent works of art becoming ludicrously more costly every day, far beyond the reach of our museums and galleries or the resources of the National Art Collections Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund? Is it not therefore true that unless the Government produce funds to buy the few important works of art held back each year—since we cannot rely on a Jacob Rothschild popping up on each occasion—our export control system will prove to be no longer admirable but a time-wasting farce?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness has somewhat broadened the Question on the Order Paper. This country is a treasure-house of antiquity and beauty, and I believe that that shows the success of our regime over the years. In other countries which have tougher regulations all that has happened is that they have been cleaned out illegally. We have a successful regime which works.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if members of the public are being asked to contribute to the purchase of the work with the object of it being put on public view they are entitled to know who are the beneficiaries of their contributions? Can the Minister tell the House who are the great patrons of the arts who are domiciled in the Cayman Islands? If they were paid £2 million for the work and the Getty Museum is now prepared to pay £7 million, can the Minister say why the owners did not sell it directly to the Getty Museum?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not act on behalf of or as an agent for the individuals concerned and therefore I cannot answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. However, I can tell him that in the past, today and in the future works of art have been and will continue to be presented anonymously. That has been a fact of life for some considerable time. I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that the owners are reputable people.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a case for reconsideration of our tax regime generally as a broad question along the lines of the American model in this regard?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always my noble friend has raised an interesting point. I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we now know that no fewer than four ministries are involved in the matter? Since there is only a fortnight before the export ban expires is it not right that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, should be followed, otherwise between all those ministeries the matter will be fumbled?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure the House that considerable efforts will be made to make sure that the matter is not fumbled.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of the injunction for judicial review can the Minister tell the House whether the period of the export ban will be extended before the final decision is made on the export of this work of art?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I answered that question earlier when I pointed out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may well review the date in the light of the judicial review.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the Government confirm that the total sum allowed for acceptance in lieu of tax is not limited to the present financial year but can be estimated on a rolling basis?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that that is correct.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if the Government take up the very generous offer of Mr. Jacob Rothschild—which arises out of the will of Mrs. James Rothschild—will they bear in mind that many of us hope that the work will be put on display somewhere more central than Waddesdon Manor even though that was the home of Mrs. Rothschild?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord anticipates events. I cannot share his certainty as to the outcome.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to improve the efficiency of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we approved last week the recruitment of the 60 extra staff which were requested by the Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for Great Britain, my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Ten of those staff are already in post.
A major computer project has been approved and its first phase will start in March. The scheme administered by the board has also been revised with effect from 1st February in order to allow cases to be resolved more quickly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he not recall that the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons described the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board as sinking under a mountain of paper and facing a bureaucratic nightmare? While welcoming his right honourable friend's announcement that there will be 60 additional staff, can the noble Earl give an undertaking to the House that cases coming before the board will now be dealt with far more expeditiously? Is he aware that at present there is a backlog of 100,000 cases before the board? Can he give any assurance that there will be a dramatic improvement in the situation within a matter of months?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee when it objects to endless paperwork and considers the situation to be a bureaucratic nightmare. However, the committee only reported on 8th February and we have already responded to its major recommendation for increased numbers of staff. Although the noble Lord

513
says that there is a backlog of 100,000 cases, I should point out that there are only 95,000. The noble Lord is always peculiarly accurate, but he has slipped a little today. Half the trouble is that the number of applications increased last year from 43,000 a year to 53,000. That is why we have increased the number of staff. It is a matter of great concern when cases take so long. The noble Lord will not expect me to give a guarantee as to what will happen in the future other than that we shall work on it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the mere 95,000 cases outstanding to which he referred amount to a considerable infliction of hardship on people who have already suffered a great deal of hardship? Is he aware that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has now replaced the Passport Office as the most incompetent, idle and irritating organ of government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will ensure that those mellifluous words are passed on to his noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. However, I do not agree with him that it is the most inefficient organ of government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in that case, which is?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, each noble Lord has his own decision to take on that matter. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be a great deal of competition in noble Lords' minds, but none in the Government's.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not possible that the work of the compensation board might be helped if the courts were encouraged to make wider use of their powers of awarding compensation in criminal cases, which would give a speedy offer of relief where the money was available?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, courts are obliged to award compensation and certainly to take into account compensation with regard to any major matters. However, if a case of criminal injury is passed on to the board it must decide whether that candidate is eligible. That in itself can take a long time.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, having been close to the case relating to the Brighton bomb which came before the board, I can assure the House that no words yet used to describe the board are harsh enough. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government's proposals can have any hope of dealing with the mountain created by this problem and whether it does not need a more rational approach. Is the Minister aware that the system would work more efficiently if management consultants were brought in to give advice on the problem of the tens of thousands of applications involving specific cases with which it is inevitably rather difficult to deal? Does he agree that if there were a basic table of compensation relating to
514
standard cases which could be paid quickly it would alleviate those in great suffering, distress and need and leave those with specific problems to argue their case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether it would be worth while to bring in management consultants. Obviously, when we deal with matters of this size, there comes a time when one must review the method of operation. As yet, we have not found that the most appropriate thing to do. Although there has been a delay in dealing with claims, one must remember that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which was set up in 1964, dealt in its first full year with 2,452 claims and had only 30 staff and that it now deals with 53,000 claims and has 330 staff. It is difficult to deal expeditiously with all claims.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about a table, I must tell him that there are a number of items which the board must look into; namely, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, the loss of earning capacity in the future, and medical and other expenses. If one takes all those together, a table does not fit in too easily.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not able to compete in any way with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his denigratory adjectives in regard to government departments and institutions. However, does the Minister agree that, on his own arithmetic, if there are 50,000 cases a year and a backlog of 95,000 cases, cases which are two years old have not yet been started? Is that not dreadful? Will he consider the Government's decision last year to reduce the threshold from £550 to £750 before anyone may make a claim? Does he agree that, for many people, £550 worth of loss is the equivalent to others of well over £5,500 worth of loss?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that two-year-old cases have not been started. The backlog which requires to be dealt with amounts to that large sum. That is why we have increased the staff by the number that I mentioned. One of the reasons for changing the limit from £550 to £750 was to keep out the relatively less serious injuries. Although they are bad for the individual, their inclusion would have the reverse effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, desires and would merely clog up the system even more.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is an overwhelming feeling in the House that the victims of crime deserve more protection? Will he therefore discuss with the chairman of the board the situation of people waiting 18 months or two years to have their cases resolved? Is this not a matter of considerable urgency? I would urge the noble Earl to meet the chairman of the board to obtain some undertaking from him as to how long it will be before some of those long-delayed cases are proceeded with.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we keep in close touch with the chairman of the board. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that priority is given to fatal

515
cases, those which involve serious injuries and those involving the elderly. However, if there are many cases there must inevitably be some form of priority and other cases are bound to slip lower down the queue. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government sympathise wholeheartedly with those who wish to see that victims are adequately and properly compensated where appropriate.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Earl give greater consideration to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that court funds should be used to compensate victims and to reduce the length of time they have to wait, and that the sum should be retrieved from the offender?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we shall certainly take that point into account.

Business of the House: Debates, 14th March
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Carter and the Lord Mishcon set down for 14th March shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pakistan Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Coal Industry Bill
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
516
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Deficiency grants to British Coal Corporation]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Those who follow these matters will understand that this amendment in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seeks to bring a greater measure of certainty into the Government's intentions. Although Ministers in another place and here have not been prepared to accept that the raison d'être of this Bill is to prepare the coal industry for privatisation, the reality is that everyone knows that the Bill's intention, and this part of it in particular, is to give those who will be invited to invest in the future privatised industry a better product to buy.
On this side of the House we have no strong objection to action by the Government which is intended to write off very large sums of money in order to make the industry better and more viable. We object to the fact that it is to be done in the form of words as they stand at the moment in the Bill, which means that there is no guarantee that the Government will do it. There will be other amendments and other opportunities to amend the Bill. The whole purpose of these amendments at Committee stage is to probe the Government's intentions on a range of matters and to clarify the understandings that the Minister here and his colleagues in another place have given so far.
We are contemplating here considerable sums of money. The Government may say that they are not able to tell us precisely the sums of money involved until a later date. That is understandable. However, it is a habit on the part of the Government to write off large sums of money owed or to the debt of industry before that industry becomes privatised. I remind the Committee that we are speaking of possibly £5 billion or £6 billion. The Government have had experience of writing off comparable sums before. For instance, in the water industry they wrote off £6 billion in order to provide a sweet and clean industry for the private investor. For the British steel industry the sum of £4·5 billion was written off. For British Telecom the sum was almost £3 billion. By the time one has brought in British Telecom, one is speaking in terms of a sum approaching £20 billion. This Government are no stranger to writing off debts of public assets and publicly accountable industries in order to sell them on the open market.
Whether or not the industry is privatised we certainly agree that the accounts and accounting systems of British Coal over the years have been horrendous—some would say ludicrous—in comparison with the way in which other industries in this country and coal industries in other countries have had to be financed. We believe that the

517
Government ought to be prepared to accept our amendment so that the clause will read:
"The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to the British Coal Corporation"
rather than, as it stands at present:
"the Secretary of State may … make grants".
So long as the word "may" remains in the clause, we believe that there is an element through which people may be cajoled, blackmailed or have a threat held over their heads. We do not want a lever or stick used against the management of British Coal to ensure that it complies with the Government's directions in this matter. So far as we are concerned the write-off is sensible and reasonable in the circumstances. However, we object to the fact that at the moment it is discretionary.
This amendment is an attempt to probe the Government's intention in this matter and to urge the Minister to say why, if he does not accept the amendment, he is not prepared to be more positive about the write-off. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: To begin with I must say that this amendment is defective. It imposes a duty to pay sums of grant which are unspecified, except that they cannot exceed the expected accumulated loss next March. One cannot have a duty to pay out grants of unspecified sums. Who is to say, for instance, when that duty is discharged?
The amendment is not acceptable because it involves a potential conflict with our obligations under the Treaty of Paris. Under that treaty the European Commission is empowered to approve state aids to the coal industry. Deficiency grant is a state aid subject to the approval of the European Coal and Steel Community. In the unlikely event that the European Coal and Steel Community denied approval for deficiency grant, this amendment would force the Secretary of State to act in a manner contrary to the ECSC treaty.
The amendment could involve the Government paying out more grant in respect of British Coal's costs than British Coal in fact incurs. A large part of the estimated deficiency comprises provisions for concessionary coal (up to £2 billion) and deafness claims at half a billion. These provisions have been prepared on the basis of detailed estimates but the actual figures could be less. That is why the Government are proposing to pay British Coal grant in respect of these elements only when British Coal itself settles the concessionary coal and deafness claims and only in the amounts that British Coal itself pays.
I indicated to this Chamber on Second Reading that the Government intend to pay out a substantial sum in deficiency grant—but not the amounts relating to the long-term concessionary coal and deafness claims—once Royal Assent and the European Coal and Steel Community's approval of our proposals have been obtained, and that it was crucial for this purpose that Royal Assent was received before the end of the financial year. It is not possible to be precise about the amount as yet. That will depend on the corporation's trading performance over the remaining weeks of this year
518
and on the amount by which the corporation's fixed assets have to be written down. The write-down of fixed assets has to be carefully consistent with the economic capacity that British Coal envisages in its forward strategic planning and that cannot be known with any certainty until the corporation's accounts have been finalised in July or August.
For those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Viscount has been quite explicit in telling us why this is an enabling Bill rather than a Bill to explain to Parliament how much money the taxpayer is expected to pay in order to meet the accumulated deficit of the coal industry. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have put in Clause 1 that the obligation on the Secretary of State was subject to approval from the Coal and Steel Community. We would all have understood that. He has explained that and we certainly would welcome it appearing specifically on the face of the Bill.
The Minister went on to talk about deafness and concessionary coal, a matter which we shall address in Amendment No. 2. He then went on to talk about the possible write-down of assets, and at some stage we shall talk about the possible write-up of assets.
The principle remains that Clause 1(1) simply authorises the Secretary of State to take whatever initiative he may see fit, without the control of Parliament nor any decision from Parliament about what he shall or shall not do, to pay out certain amounts which at the moment are unspecified. We on the Opposition Benches do not feel that that is an appropriate expression of government intention.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give the Committee some figures—they are reasonably in the public domain—about what the Secretary of State is proposing to pay out in grant from the Consolidated Fund and moneys provided by Parliament in order that we can have some idea about what the taxpayer is in for. Before deciding what to do with our amendment I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could elaborate on the matter.
Viscount Ullswater: I have given the Committee the figures for deafness and concessionary coal. The losses which have accumulated are in excess of £1 billion. The write-down of the assets is between £2 billion and £3 billion. However, as we shall discuss in detail in a moment, a figure has not been arrived at and possibly will not be arrived at until the end of the financial year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I may not have understood the Minister. It could be implied from his comments that British Coal would be profligate in spending goodness knows how much money which, if our amendment is accepted, would be wiped off. In other words, it will take advantage of the situation. We are talking about a period of one month; the provision relates to the period ending 31st March 1990. Is the Minister saying that British Coal will take advantage of "shall" instead of "may" in order to spend more money on an item which it

519
believes to be more useful to the industry, the miners or business generally? Is he saying that it will take advantage of a change of wording, especially when we are talking of a period of a little over one month? I repeat that the date in the subsection is 31st March 1990, and 1st March is on Thursday this week.
Lord Merrivale: Before my noble friend replies, I wish to seek clarification on what may be a simple matter. The amendment provides:
"The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to the British Coal Corporation".
If the approval of the Treasury is not granted shall we be back to a state of "may"?
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are trying to provide that, subject to a proper review of the accounts and any accumulated group deficit at the end of March, which is not far away, the Secretary of State shall have an obligation. The review is objective and is designed to establish the balance sheet position at the end of March by normal accounting procedures. Under those circumstances, and to be absolutely frank, the Treasury will have little option but to agree to the Secretary of State's decision.
Viscount Ullswater: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, it is the Government's intention to deal with the debts of the past—that is, the deficit which has mounted up to the end of March 1990, and the asset write-down required—in order to put British Coal on a better footing for the future. I have already explained the difficulty about the use of the work "shall" instead of "may". The sums are imprecise because they will be paid out for concessionary coal and deafness only as and when they occur.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to take issue with the noble Viscount. At the end of March 1990 a balance sheet must be struck containing figures which are precise. I do not wish to speak about the next amendment but the amounts must be struck by the end of March 1990. That is what the Bill provides. If that is the case, how can the amounts be imprecise?
Viscount Ullswater: The balance sheet will be struck at the end of March. However, the amounts involved will not be known until the report is published much later in the year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has not satisfied me nor, I believe, the Committee. He says that the figures are uncertain but that at some date they will be made certain. Therefore, in jibbing at a change of words by hanging on to "may" and rejecting "shall" he leaves open the possibility that when the figures are known the Government may decide not to write off all the debts.
The Minister has not said that but the implication is perfectly clear. We understand the uncertainty about being precise. However, if there is no dubiety, whatever balance is struck on 31st March the
520
Government will write it off. Therefore, why does the Minister not say, "Let us cut out this uncertainty. We shall write them off"?
While the Minister keeps within his power what can or cannot be done—that is the use of the word "may"—he is injecting into the situation a degree of uncertainty which is not good for the health of the industry. He said that the intention is to make British Coal healthier in the future, and we do not argue with that. We are daggers drawn across the Chamber in respect of what we know the Government intend to do with the industry and what we believe to be in the national interest.
I do not believe that at this stage we shall get any further with the Government. The Minister's collegues in another place, and also members of his department, cannot understand the fact that if the amendment is accepted there will be a sense of relief in many quarters and the value of the Bill to the Government will not be diminished one jot. However, he will not accept the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("accounts") insert ("which shall include provision for future liabilities arising from compensation for industrial deafness and concessionary coal").
The noble Lord said: The Minister sees the amendment as being a major matter, and I have no comment to make about that. We are using this stage of the Bill to obtain copper-bottomed guarantees in writing, if not in legislation, and therefore the Minister's words will have some meaning. The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to ask for it to be written and understood within the Bill that future liabilities arising from compensation for industrial deafness and concessionary coal will be fully undertaken.
I believe that the Minister can help us by giving us some more detail. When I looked at the proceedings in another place I noted the words of Mr. Peter Hardy who, in Committee, said in terms that one does not need to be harsh or lacking in compassion when one prepares an industry for privatisation. There are others in this House today who are closer to coal mining communities than either the Minister or myself. I have been told that there is a certain amount of unease at the way in which British Coal has treated individuals who perhaps do not have the muscle or the ability to articulate which the Minister and I have in defence of our own interests.
I looked carefully at the words of Mr. Dennis Skinner who was a Member of the Committee in another place. He said that British Coal had already started telling widows who live in a tiny dwelling with only one fireplace that they will not receive the equivalent of five tonnes of coal per week and that the amount has been lowered.
We know that the incidence of deafness pro rata in the industry is higher than in other industrial processes. This amendment deals with people who, as part of their conditions, wages, pensions and way

521
of life have received concessionary coal. That is part of what they have worked for and many have died for it. Sadly, a miner died last week working in a pit.
I am not saying that the Minister or the Government are unfeeling. However, I believe that the Minister can go a long way to diminish the worries and concerns as brought to us by those in another place who are much closer to the coal mining industry than either the Minister or myself. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the Government have no intention of writing down the amount of money put forward for deafness claims or concessionary coal. I believe that I should make that perfectly clear.
However, the amendment is largely unnecessary. The corporation included in its March 1989 balance sheet a provision to cover its estimated latent liability for deafness claims arising from its operations prior to that date. The Secretary of State has made clear that British Coal is expected to provide in its 31st March 1990 balance sheet for the full accumulated liability to that date in respect of concessionary coal, smokeless fuel and cash in lieu.
The amendment also requires a provision to be made in respect of future liabilities. It would be quite unacceptable in accounting terms to make provision this year for commitments and liabilities still to be incurred. Those will be a charge against the profits for the year in which they are actually incurred. Therefore, the amendment would be in conflict with the requirement of the 1946 coal industry's nationalisation Act that the accounts must be in a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards.
The limit on the proposed efficiency grant is set by the amount of the corporation's accumulated group deficit at 31st March 1990. The corporation has a range of liabilities and to the extent that those are properly provided for in its March 1990 balance sheet, those liabilities will also affect the corporation's accumulated group deficit to that date. The limit on deficiency grant will therefore automatically be sufficient to enable grant to be paid in respect of those liabilities. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question about future liabilities to which he referred. It is clear from the corporation's statement of accounting policies that the charge which the corporation has admitted in its profit and loss in respect of noise induced hearing loss is made on a systematic basis. Those accounting policies in the annual report state that that is calculated over the average service lives of the employees concerned having regard to the current experience in the submission and the cost of settlement of claims.
We have had a variety of views in the past about what "settlement of claims" really means and, indeed, what current experience can show about future experience. It is perfectly proper in accounting
522
procedure to have contingent liabilities. While the corporation may not wish to admit a real liability on its balance sheet, presumably it has up its accountant's sleeve—if I may use that expression—a view on what the contingent liabilities for the future may be. They do not pass through the profit and loss, are not at present mentioned in the corporation's balance sheet but certainly should be taken into account if the corporation is to be put on the sound financial footing which I believe the Government want.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not believe that there is much dividing us. The balance sheet will show the estimated liability it has for those two items—for the deafness claims and concessionary coal—both to employed and retired miners. However, it cannot provide for future demands of people yet to be employed or yet to become deaf.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It certainly could so provide if it was felt that this was a continuing measure which should be included in any balance sheet. For example if a nuclear power station—and I revert to a subject which the noble Viscount and I have discussed—knows that it has certain shutdown or decommissioning costs, then it is perfectly proper, although it is well in the future, for the company concerned to make some kind of provision. It will not necessarily be done on the balance sheet because I agree that those are provisions which are known at the time. However, it can be done through contingent liabilities in respect of employees who may be there but, nevertheless, are not liable to claim at that point in time.
I certainly go along with the noble Viscount in saying that it is not possible to determine for the year 2030 who will be employed and what provisions should be made for them. However, I think it would be appropriate for the existing employees or at least for employees who may be there in the short-term future, to make such provisions on a contingent basis even though we know that they may not be making such a claim.
Viscount Ullswater: I think I can agree with the noble Lord. Clause 1 talks about the accumulated group deficit up to the period ending end of March 1990. The corporation's accounting policy states that account is taken of its latent liability for noise induced hearing loss. Therefore, that takes account of its expected liability arising from its operations to date, not just liabilities relating to claims which it has already received. I hope that makes the matter clearer.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to what our honourable friends in another place, Dennis Skinner and Peter Hardy, have said with regard to concessionary coal. The Minister may know that one honourable friend comes from the Yorkshire coal field and the other from the Derbyshire coal field. I live in the Durham coalfield area and exactly the same is being said there: that concessionary coal is to cease. I hope that I do not need to stress to the

523
Minister how important concessionary coal is to mining families. It is not a gift. It was negotiated many years ago as part of the wages and conditions. It is part of the tradition. We have heard no argument that suggests that it ought to come to an end.
Our amendment makes provision for future liabilities with regard to industrial deafness and concessionary coal. I presume from everything that has been said on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 that British Coal will fully take into consideration provision for concessionary coal. The Minister may say that it is a matter for the British Coal Corporation; it is a matter for management. We on this side say that it is nothing of the kind: it is a matter of a basic principle concerning wages and conditions in the mining industry.
We have given the Minister three different examples from three different coalfields. I hope that the Minister can now say that it is not the intention of the Government to make less provision. If he says that it is a matter for British Coal, perhaps he will comment on that.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said. If he has any specific instances that he would like to bring to my attention I can guarantee that I shall pass it higher up the chain, if I may so put it. As the noble Lord says, British Coal provides concessionary fuel under the 1984 national concessionary fuel agreement which was signed with the NUM. The corporation considers this agreement to be legally binding. I do not think that there is anything more that I can say about that. We are talking about the provision of sums of money in the accounts due at the end of March 1990 to provide for this concessionary coal.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister can take it from me that we accept the Government's intention. Certainly what he has said on the record will be helpful. However, perhaps I may ask him this. He said that it was not the intention to provide less money in the future than that which was provided in the past. The Minister knows all about inflation. He knows all about the slight uncertainty that exists.
On reading my papers on this matter, I understand that in the Yorkshire coalfield there is a considerable increase in the number of miners and retired miners who are successfully making claims for compensation for deafness. My noble friend Lord Dormand knows the Durham and Northumberland coalfields far better than anyone else in this Chamber. There has been an increase in the successful claims for compensation for deafness for miners in that area.
The Minister satisfied my noble friend and I when he said that the sums of money take into account the latent anticipations. In other words, an attempt has been made to assess the amount. The Government are not merely saying that it cost, for example, £500 million last year but that £543 million is in the account now. There is a genuine attempt to try to ensure that the balance sheet is true and fair. That is the purpose of the amendment.
524
My noble friend Lord Dormand has reinforced the point better than I could. The Minister has accepted it. It is absolutely central to mining communities and to my noble friend Lady Turner who sits on the Front Bench with me that whenever agreements are made they ought not to be to the detriment of existing conditions. The deal that is struck ought not to be detrimental to existing rights and privileges.
However the Minister cares to term it, we consider it a right—not a privilege—that many have worked for and many miners have died for. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his attempt to help us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert ("; and (c) shall not be made unless the British Coal Corporation has first published an up-to-date itemised valuation of its assets").
The noble Lord said: We now come to one of the most vexed questions in the whole Bill, and indeed in nationalised industries in general. I am referring to the valuation of assets. We have seen over and over again in privatisations publicly owned companies—by "publicly owned" I mean owned by the Government, the public state, the taxpayer—being sold off without due regard to the proper valuation of assets. I do not need to mention the Royal Ordnance Factories and others that have been the subject of considerable debate and dispute. If the coal industry is to be put on a proper financial basis, it is very important that the assets that the coal corporation owns should be properly valued.
It is always a matter for dispute about what a proper valuation is. I accept that in the case of current assets a proper valuation would be established by the auditiors at the time when the balance sheet is struck. I have questions as to whether that proper valuation is on a first-in/first-out basis or a last-in/first-out basis. That is no doubt a matter on which the noble Viscount would be prepared to comment. However, I suspect that on the valuation of the current assets there are some points on which the Government Front Bench and myself could agree.
It is far from the case that we would agree on the valuation of fixed assets. In its annual report, the corporation values the assets on two bases: historic cost and current cost. We do not know which is acceptable and right. As the noble Viscount will be aware, some time ago it was decided by the Accounting Standards Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that current cost accounting ought to be the one used in inflationary times. Since then, inflation having subsided in the early and middle 1980s, that has gone out of fashion. But it is a statutory duty on the corporation to provide those accounts on a CCA basis.
Now that inflation is at almost 8 per cent., and we are looking again at a possibly inflationary environment, it may well be right—I am not arguing

525
it specifically—to take current cost accounting as the basis for a proper valuation of assets. It is almost the fundamental point in establishing what the accumulated group deficit is because if there is to be a write-down of assets—as the noble Viscount mentioned in answer to an earlier amendment—there could easily be a write-up of assets in a curious perverse way. If one adopts the current value of assets, they would be written up in the balance sheet and that would lower the accumulated group deficit because that write-up would pass straight across into the current cost account profit and loss.
We are therefore talking about accounting principles involved not only in the valuation of assets but also in the accumulated group deficit. In addition to that, there are no doubt a number of assets that the corporation holds that are not to be valued on a pure return basis. I understand the accounting policy that the corporation has used which is to value an asset on the basis of the commercial return that it believes it can secure from that asset. If the valuation thereby thrown up is lower than historic cost, no doubt the corporation will reduce or write off part of the historic cost to reflect that matter. That may or may not be fair. Certainly Ernst&Whinney, the auditors, endorse that accounting policy. I have no particular quarrel with that, subject to what I said about current cost accounting.
Nevertheless, there will certainly be assets in the corporation which are not used in its operations. It no doubt has land surplus to operational requirements; it may have housing surplus to operational requirements; it may have all sorts of assets which are surplus to requirements. It is those assets which have been severely stripped in the privatisations that we have seen over the past two or three years.
What we are arguing in this amendment is that the Government should ensure that the schedule of fixed assets has a detailed value placed on the assets according to some accounting principle that we can all understand and accept. If that is done and if it comes to privatisation, when the Secretary of State exercises his option to write off the accumulated group deficit we can then be satisfied that the asset valuations reflected are ones we can all agree on. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The effect of this amendment would delay any payment of grant until British Coal had completed and published a full revaluation of its assets. I can understand the noble Lord's desire to know more about the asset write-downs, given the large figures that may be involved. However, this amendment would delay the payment of any deficiency grant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Viscount continues, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that this is a probing amendment. I am not asking the noble Viscount to explain what the effect of the amendment, if carried, would be. I am using it as a vehicle to probe the Government's view on what valuations they will put on the corporation's assets.
Viscount Ullswater: I was seeking to explain that the corporation was revising its business plans for its collieries and needed to adjust the detailed valuations in the light of that. Obviously, these are some of the fixed assets the noble Lord was speaking of. These detailed valuations will not be finalised until the corporation's 1989–90 accounts have been approved by its board and reported on by its auditors, which at the earliest will be in July and this year may be rather later than normal.
However, it would be quite wrong to require British Coal to divulge information in such detail that it could prejudice its ongoing negotiations with the generators on longer-term contracts. Nevertheless, British Coal has traditionally set out in its annual accounts the gross and net value of the assets in each area or group. The Government expect this to be repeated for the 1989–90 account so that the analysis by group of the asset write-down will be clear for Parliament and others to see.
There is no question of fattening up the industry. The fact is, as I emphasised on Second Reading, that over half British Coal's collieries are expected to show a negative cash flow over their remaining life and are therefore uneconomic. Many more will not recover their book value in full. The asset write-down simply reflects this reality, and it is this reality that we expect the corporation to face up to squarely in preparing its new business plans.
The noble Lord will know that the accounts are based on the historic cost convention. It is up to the board to lift the qualification which the auditors have placed on the accounts for a number of years. However, if they see a permanent diminution in value they should take action.
The noble Lord asked particularly about the land valuation. British Coal's land and property are already valued on a regular basis. At March 1989 they had a historic book cost of £207 million and a current value of £584 million, and the Government are encouraging British Coal to sell as much surplus property as possible in order to finance its ongoing operations. None of the assets write-down relates to land.
I believe I have answered all the noble Lord's questions and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not find that to be an answer at all. I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Viscount, but I wish he would address the problems I raised. First, the question of write-down implies that there is some convention which requires the corporation to write down its assets if they are assumed to have suffered a permanent diminution in value—I am quoting from the accounting policies which can be changed—unless investment has been undertaken to make sure that those assets perform better than they have in the past.
It is perfectly clear that under certain circumstances that accounting policy can change. For instance, suppose the price of oil were to double tomorrow. The collieries which, under his formula, on the present price of oil would be written down would be written up. What convention, what

527
accounting policy will be adopted for the purposes of this Bill? It is for the purposes of this Bill that we are interested in establishing the accumulated group deficit.
Secondly, the noble Viscount said that disclosure of these facts to Parliament would prejudice the negotiating position of the corporation towards the generators of electricity under the negotiations which are taking place. I really cannot take that argument seriously. Every corporation, every company has to have a schedule of fixed assets. On the whole those schedules of fixed assets are reported quite extensively in the accounts. The fact that they may have adopted one accounting policy rather than another in order to write down or write up the assets is not something which the generators will fix on and say, "You are better off than we thought and therefore we will pay you less for your coal". That does not seem to me to make any sense at all.
Thirdly, the noble Viscount did not respond to my point with regard to current cost accounting. The corporation is under a duty to produce replacement cost accounting in its valuation of fixed assets. How will that square with the write-down that the noble Viscount is talking about? Replacement cost accounting demands that the replacement cost of an asset be put in the balance sheet. If one tried to replace a colliery, with all that that implies, one would find the value of the asset in replacement cost terms to be much higher than the historic cost of the colliery which is in the balance sheet. There will be no question of write-down; it will be a question of write-up.
I wish the noble Viscount would be a little more forthcoming about the accounting policies which the corporation intends to use in its valuation of its fixed assets so that we can establish in Parliament what the basis of the expression "any accumulated group deficit" may mean. I am still not satisfied with what the Government said about surplus assets—assets which are surplus to requirements. There may be current assets which are surplus to operational requirements; there may be fixed assets which are surplus to operational requirements. I am not happy that the Government have really studied this problem and I suspect—in the light of the data on previous privatisations this suspicion must be well founded—that we may again be in a position where the Government wish to sell off a corporation on the basis of hidden assets which can then be realised by the new owners.
Viscount Ullswater: I stress that the accounts are based on the historic cost convention, which I think the noble Lord accepts, and that it is the duty of the board and the auditors to make certain that if there has been a permanent diminution of value—the words he quoted—they should take that into account. Those things have not been taken into account over the past few years. It is in order to bring it into line with that permanent diminution that the reassessment has been made this year.
The noble Lord said that we need to look at individual collieries to see whether they were
528
economic, but it would be unwise to deal with this matter on a colliery by colliery basis. That is why I stress that the process should be done on an area basis so that it does not prejudice any future negotiations with the electricity industry.
As I stated earlier, the corporation's accounts have to be prepared in accordance with best commercial practice. I am advised that the Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 9, which states that the last in should be first out, is not usually acceptable. Therefore, I would not expect the corporation to be making general use of that method of valuation when valuing its stocks.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The discussion between us is now on three points. The first relates to non-operating assets which might be surplus to operational requirements. We are still not satisfied that the Government have instructed the corporation to itemise those assets and to value them at full present market value in establishing the accumulated group deficit.
Our second argument is on the meaning of the word "permanent" in the phrase "permanent diminution of value". I have argued that if the oil price doubles there will be many collieries which at the moment can be deemed to suffer permanent diminution in value because of the cash flow which will result on coal sales at the present price of oil but which, if oil prices double, would be profitable collieries. That is the real substance of the argument. All analysts who understand the oil industry—indeed, the chairmen of the major oil companies—state that in the mid-1990s the price could be as much as 30 dollars a barrel. If that is the case, collieries will suddenly become more profitable. Therefore, what is "permanent"?
We want some guidance from the Government on what instructions are being given to the corporation about "permanent". It is easy to say, on present values, that there is a permanent diminution in value, but if oil prices double, or whatever it may be, there will be a lovely lot of assets which can be sold off.
My third dispute with the noble Viscount is that I still do not see why the Government insist on the historic cost convention in establishing the accumulative group deficit rather than using current cost. After all, if we want to recreate a coal industry, as opposed to considering permanently an industry in decline, in terms of the replacement cost of assets there will be an enormous charge to be made.
Those are the three points on which I hope the noble Viscount will give me satisfaction.
Viscount Ullswater: I will take the three points one by one. It is up to British Coal to make a valuation. The method of valuation is the lower of the cost and net recoverable values. That is a matter between British Coal and its auditors.
The permanent diminution of value on the basis of the historic cost convention is one that has to be addressed at the moment. As I said, half of British Coal's collieries are expected to show a negative cash

529
flow over their remaining lives and are therefore uneconomic.
The noble Lord refers to the possibility of a rise in oil prices and said that obviously that will have an effect. However, he is referring to the future, which cannot be predicted. What we must do now is recognise that there is at present a permanent diminution in value. British Coal—formerly the National Coal Board—has done its accounts on an historic cost basis since the industry was nationalised in 1946.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think we are going to get very much further with this argument. I still believe that the Government should set some definition for the corporation as to what "permanent" really means. I ask the Government to please talk to the chairmen of the major oil companies to ascertain their views on what the price of oil will be in 1993. The Government will then be able to see whether there is a permanent diminution in the value of the colleries. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
("(4) Grants of not less than £100 million shall be payable for the development of clean coal technology to eliminate sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.").
The noble Lord said: First, I plead in aid the words of the Secretary of State, Mr. John Wakeham, who was quoted in the Yorkshire Post in January when he addressed the Coal Industry Society. He said:
"The industry should seek urgently to reduce the present levels of acid rain and global warming caused by burning coal if it wanted to keep its position as a leading source of energy".
It is from that point that we want to persuade the Government to be much more positive and foward-looking in the provisions made in this Bill.
We are extremely concerned at what I simply refer to as the turn of events. The noble Viscount must be aware of the situation which has occurred in recent times. I refer, of course, to the promise made by the Prime Minister last November to the United Nations. She proclaimed to the world—it was a good proclamation, and one with which we certainly do not quarrel—that the United Kingdom had a £2 billion programme to cut acid emissions from power stations.
We want the Minister to say a little more about the Government's position in regard to that programme. The Government's decision in regard to a fluidised gas desulphurisation programme certainly causes us a great deal of unease. We are extremely concerned at its impact. We do not know how the Government can, on the one hand, keep their promise of spending £2 billion on controlling and making more sweet these emissions and at the same time keep to the decision taken—as far as we are concerned, taken in the best of interests—to reduce the future costs of the industry in carrying out its obligations in that respect.
The Government and the Minister will, of course, be well aware of the impact in this nexus of the low sulphur coal imports. Therefore, we are saying that there should be proper provision for experiments, testing and seeking of solutions in this respect. Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide emissions are poisonous to one degree or another. We therefore wonder where the Government stand.
For example, I refer to the table of expenditure on research and development by the coal board. Expenditure on R&D in relation to coal-based energy is shown in the accounts as 4 per cent. That is 4 per cent, of the total expenditure on R&D ranging over oil, gas, nuclear and various other sources of energy. The total amount spent on coal-based energy inquiries to satisfy ourselves that we are doing our best is only 4 per cent.
The Minister may be curious about the figure of £100 million and may want to know why it is not £50 million or £150 million. I have taken advice and guidance from people in the industry who tell me that £100 million is not very different from what is being spent in other areas and in other spheres. They believe that to have the figure of £100 million written into the Bill will go a long way to satisfying people. We cannot simply hand over an industry to the private investor without making sure that it will continue to seek to reduce the poisonous effect of emissions of this kind. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment appears to introduce a new grant going beyond the scope of deficiency grant and to impose a new charge on public revenues. Clause 1 of the Bill is intended to introduce a deficiency grant to eliminate the corporation's accumulated group deficit at 31st March 1990 to enable the Secretary of State for Energy to continue properly to advance loans to the corporation. Under generally accepted accounting practice, further development costs cannot be taken into account when calculating this deficit and therefore would not be eligible for deficiency grant. The sums which British Coal has already incurred on research and development into clean coal technology will be extinguished by deficiency grant. This has been rising in recent years. British Coal has had a coal utilisation R&D budget of around £15 million a year, and within that the environmentally related work has risen from under 10 per cent, in 1983 to nearly 50 per cent. now. British Coal has also spent nearly £10 million on the Grimethorpe test rig over the past three years which will now be extinguished by deficiency grant.
The Government support the view that clean coal technology needs to be developed. The Department of Energy currently supports research into many aspects of clean coal technology, but it is appropriate that primary responsibility for funding continues to rest with the industry. It is for industry to undertake research and development in response to the opportunities which are available. The Department of Energy's present budget for coal-based research and development is about £2–6 million and will rise to £7–6 million in 1991 to support the development of British Coal's topping cycle project at Grimethorpe. This budget is used to support more

531
than 20 projects, the majority of which are involved with the clean utilisation of coal. I should like to give some examples of the work the department supports.
It is providing support for trials of the British Gas Lurgi coal gasifier. This technology offers greatly reduced emissions of pollutants, and if incorporated into a combined cycle, would result in more efficient power generation. The United Kingdom through the Department of Energy recently joined the International Energy Association coal combustion sciences programme. This programme sponsors research into clean coal technology and specifically develops ways of reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen. The Department of Energy is also funding coal combustion laser diagnostic work at the Atomic Energy Authority's Harwell technology laboratory. This investigates the fundamentals of coal combustion and will enhance understanding of pollutant formation.
The £2 billion figure given by the noble Lord is partly explained by the cost of fitting Drax power station with flue gas desulphurisation equipment, at about £600 million in capital costs. This is for four gigawatts of production. The Government are committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom complies with the large combustion plant directive, to which I think my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was directing her comments. The directive commits the United Kingdom to reducing its emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from existing plants such as fossil fuel power stations but does not specify the means by which this should be done. Retro-fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment will play a part in this, but the burning of low sulphur fuels may also contribute.
I have explained that the Government are undertaking their research and development projects seriously. The amendment goes beyond the scope of the deficiency grant and also introduces a new charge upon the public revenue. It is therefore not acceptable, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: I am interested in this subject because I have been involved with forestry for a long time. If acid rain becomes worse there will be serious effects on our forests. Who do the Government expect to provide the money for the research? Is it to be the users? Who do they believe will do the research? Will the users provide the money and the Coal Board do the research? That would be the fairest way and it would not put all the responsibility on the Coal Board.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am a little puzzled by what the Minister has said or is implying. In a debate in another place last Tuesday on the electricity industry a speech made by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Parkinson, in a debate on the coal industry, was quoted. This is what he said:
"I am able to confirm today that we have asked the privatised generators to continue to plan on the basis of installing 12,000 MW of FGD capacity during the 190s."
532
He went on to say, and this is relevant to what we are discussing at the moment:
"If we were to revert to low-sulphur coal, we would have to import massive quantities from overseas. The fitting of Drax and other stations with FGD equipment will ensure that there is a substantial market for British Coal".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/90; col. 827.]
Perhaps we would accept that to some extent; but, as my noble friend asks, where will the money come from? The former Secretary of State seems to be supporting in principle what we are saying in the amendment. But it will cost money. If the Minister is saying that the Government go along with low sulphur, and that we shall not destroy our environment or other people's environments, then we shall have to import, in the words of Mr. Parkinson, massive quantitites of coal.
Later today we are to debate the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill which is almost entirely concerned with the effect on the British coal industry of an increase—some think it will be a massive increase—in coal imports. If what the former Secertary of State says is the Government's view—presumably that must be the case—where will the money come from; or is the Minister now saying that the Government will agree to this massive import of coal?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, but I do so in my capacity as vice-chairman of the All-Party Energy Studies Group of this House. The Minister referred to research being undertaken by the Government, and to the laser diagnostic work leading to better combustion of coal. Is he in a position to tell the Committee about the state of progress in that important research work?
Viscount Ullswater: If I may take the last question first, I am not in a position to do so now, but I take note of what the noble Lord says and I shall investigate further. I shall write to him on the subject. It was one of a series of examples of how the Government are seeking to improve the technology. I shall write to the noble Lord with the details.
To turn to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I do not need to stress, because it has been stressed by Government Ministers before, that we very much adopt the policy that the polluter pays. Therefore the cost of dealing with pollution is very much for industry whether it is nationalised or in the public sector. The retro-fitting of coal and oil-fired powered stations with the flue gas desulphurisation equipment is an important means of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide which I understand to be the main component polluter of acid rain.
As I have said, contracts have already been placed for the retro-fitting of the 4 gigawatt Drax power station which is coal fired and further retro-fits are in prospect. But there are other means and not necessarily the massive import of low sulphur coal as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, suggested, though I guess that some further imports of low sulphur coal will be made.

533
For example, there will be greater use of low sulphur natural gas in power stations which will not only reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, but will help to control emissions of carbon dioxide. That is another important factor that we have to take into consideration when we speak about the greenhouse effect. That could prove very valuable in the strategy.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may comment on something which the Minister has just said in reply to my intervention. I think he said that there will be an increase in the importation of low sulphur coal. The former Secretary of State said that it will be necessary to import massive quantities from overseas. One assumes that that is an accurate description of what is happening. In view of what the Minister said a moment ago, is he prepared to say that there will be a massive importation of low sulphur coal with all the effects that that might have not only on the British coal industry but on the £20 billion deficit on the balance of payments?
Viscount Ullswater: No, I am not prepared to say that there will be massive imports of coal in the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: That is a comfort.
Viscount Ullswater: It is perhaps just one way of dealing with this particular directive. It is up to the industry to take note of the large combustion plant directive and arrange its affairs so that it can comply with it. I have given the noble Lord an indication of how that can be done in other ways.
Lord Dormand of Easington: We have taken note on this side of the Committee that the Minister is contradicting what the Secretary of State said.
Viscount Ullswater: No. I am sorry to take issue with the noble Lord. I am not saying that what the Secretary of State said was not correct. I am saying that in order to do what the noble Lord has suggested and with no other means at all, then the Secretary of State could be correct. I do not see that there will have to be massive imports of low sulphur coal because there are other means of dealing with the problem including the retro-fitting of the flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
Lord Hampton: Does the Minister not agree that reserves of natural gas are limited, and possibly that the only reserve at the moment which is not limited is in the Norwegian fields? Does the Minister not further agree that it is wrong to encourage taking too much natural gas for large power stations?
Viscount Ullswater: It is axiomatic that all fossil fuels are of a limited nature; we are not making any more. How we use them for the generation of power has to be taken into account when we look at the environmental nature of the burning of fossil fuels. Coal has a deleterious effect on our environment.
Lord Hampton: I must pursue the issue a little further. Coal is one fuel and it is said that there are reserves of coal for at least 300 years still in the
534
ground. On the other hand, natural gas is a much more limited reserve and a much more important one.
Viscount Ullswater: I take note of what the noble Lord says. I remind him that we also have a nuclear industry as well for the provision of electrical power.
Lord John-Mackie: I am sure that everybody agrees with the noble Viscount that the polluter should pay. I am asking for some mandatory system of collecting money from the people who might pollute and for that money to go into research if the Minister is not going to give my noble friend £100 million out of Government funds for such research. The money has to come from somewhere and the research has to be adequate. The Minister mentioned one piece of research, but I was hoping that there was a lot more than that.
Viscount Ullswater: In fact, I mentioned about four forms of research for clean coal combustion. The Government are providing a substantial amount of money for these technologies. The noble Lord mentioned acid rain and asked what we intend to do about that. It was to that question that I addressed the remarks that the polluter should pay.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Committee is grateful to the Minister for his attempts to clarify what is quite clearly a conundrum. Statements are made by Ministers in another place generally against the background of the commitment by the Government and not least under the EC large combustion plant directive. The Government are committed to reduce the emissions mentioned in this amendment by these amounts: 20 per cent, by 1993; 40 per cent, by 1998 and 60 per cent, by the year 2003.
The Minister has told us that the pledge made by the Prime Minister to the UN last November is not at variance with the actions of the Government to reduce the emissions because there are other ways of doing so apart from those which previously had been held to be the most direct ways. The noble Viscount sits here as a Minister from the Department of Energy and he must be well aware that his colleagues in the Department of the Environment certainly do not see things in the way that he does.
For instance, in an article in the Independent this morning, Mary Fagan, the technology correspondent, deals with this very point. I believe the Minister will be interested in her remarks. She says:
"In a move which has angered officials at the Department of the Environment, the generating industry and the Department of Energy claim that the reductions in sulphur dioxide can be met by using new plants called Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and importing more low-sulphur coal".
My noble friend Lord Dormand has pointed out that we do not look at this matter in isolation because there are other consequences. The Government are hell bent on making the sale of the British coal industry as attractive as they possibly can by reducing the obligations and abandoning their responsibilities to the people of this country, not

535
least in the context of the environment and clean air.
This is a very modest amendment. The Minister may very well be right technically that this is not the place in which this subject should be addressed; namely, in a clause which deals with deficiencies. He might have been a little more helpful. This is an argument that will run and run. However, for the moment I shall let the matter rest. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Grants for workforce redeployment and reduction]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("2A) In subsection (4) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) for which the corporation has published its projections for workforce deployment and reduction and a statement of the collieries which are expected to be affected, giving reasons for each colliery mentioned." ").
The noble Lord said: As the amendment makes clear, we are anxious to know how the Government see the future of the industry not only in terms of employment but also in terms of the impact of the change. The Minister surely cannot gainsay that there is likely to be a substantial if not a traumatic change in a number of mining communities.
I do not wish to enter into an argument about the fact that over the past 40 years, and certainly over the past 25 years, there has been more change in the physical environment of coal mining communities than there has been in any previous comparable period. We are attempting to encourage the Minister to tell us a little more about the picture of the coal mining industry in the future than we know at present. Of course, there have been statements and leaked documents, but I think that the noble Viscount can do the department which he represents a service if he is frank with the people who will be affected by the legislation.
Let us take, for example, the situation in Nottinghamshire. I have read the report of the relevant proceedings which took place in another place. My very good friend Frank Haynes, who is the Member of Parliament for Nottinghamshire, drew to the attention of Members in that place the difficulties which are being experienced by some county councils—he referred to his council—in trying to anticipate the possible rundown and in endeavouring to find a means of providing work and making other arrangements which will make the possible rundown and closure of pits a little more palatable.
The Minister may say that there are bodies such as British Coal Enterprise Limited and other such organisations in place. However, I must tell him that the coal mining communities are not enamoured by
536
having such organisations put forward as the kinds of bodies which will protect them from the trauma they will face in the future. The amendment is a simple one. Moreover, like all of the amendments put forward today, it is a probing amendment. We want the Minister to tell us whether he is in a position—even if he does not accept the amendment—to say a little more about how he sees the future work complement of the mining industry when the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I can understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to know more about the possible closure or reorganisation of collieries and the consequential effect on the workforce. However, the fact is that there is no master plan for colliery closures. Moreover, if there were one it would change so frequently and radically as not to be very meaningful. I do not dispute that there may be some collieries which are physically running out of all economically recoverable coal where you can truthfully say, "Within a given timescale this pit will close". That is a fact of life. The workforce and the local community can take it fully into account in their plans for other jobs. However, in most cases there are simply too many imponderables.
For example, the coal industry has probably the most elaborate system for joint review of poorly performing units of any British industry. Indeed, many pits put into the review procedure have been pulled around and have survived. Even where it is accepted by the men that the pit does not have a future, the number of redundancies cannot accurately be predicted. That is because British Coal has invariably offered alternative jobs to any man who wishes to remain in the industry.
Moreover, requiring British Coal to produce projections of closures and redundancies could prejudice the ongoing negotiations with the generators on long-term contracts for the pits under threat of closure and thus serve to undermine the economic viability of the pit. That would not be in the interests of the workforce concerned.
Over the past three years British Coal has been able to carry out unprecedented restructuring of the industry without a single compulsory redundancy by offering exceptionally generous redundancy terms to its workforce. Such generous terms are only possible because of the Government's continuing support through the payment of restructuring grant which this clause addresses.
In seeking to raise the limit on the grant in the coal Bill, the Government are demonstrating their continued commitment to the industry and its workforce. I think that the noble Lord mentioned the success of British Coal Enterprise Limited. As I recall, on Second Reading we commented on the number of jobs which it has provided; that is, somewhere in the region of 42,000. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the Government see the restructuring of the industry to be the responsibility of British Coal. They are certainly providing the money and the restructuring grant so that that restructuring can take place. They are also providing additional facilities through British Coal Enterprise

537
Limited for the employment of those who may seek redundancy. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister said that there was no master plan for the future of the industry. In literal terms that may be the case. However, he knows that there is a master principle; namely, whether a pit is making a profit. It is as simple as that. As soon as a pit begins to show a loss the position of that colliery is considered. There is no consideration given to the effect upon the community. Of course that is nothing new and I am not presenting a new issue to Members of the Committee.
However, it does not alter the fact that those of us who live in the mining communities realise the absolutely devastating effect which a pit closure can produce. I think that the Minister will probably agree with me that the multiplier effect is a factor of two as regards mining. The economists have said that. Again, we have seen that and we have talked about the effect upon local shops and local services and also the effect upon the firms which make mining equipment, and so on. The criterion which the Government apply to the situation is an extremely narrow one.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that the colliery review procedure is still in operation. If it is, I can tell him that it is an absolute formality. In fact, I suspect that this procedure, which arose out of the miners' strike, is not being considered. I fully support my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton when he talks about British Coal Enterprise Limited. This body has said that it has created some 30,000 jobs in the past two or three years, which is the period it has been in existence. However, the number of jobs lost in the coal industry since 1985—that is, since the ending of the miners' strike—is no fewer than 130,000. That is not the whole story as regards British Coal Enterprise Limited. I hope therefore that the Minister will have a closer look at the problem. I say that because when I was in another place I received many complaints about this aspect from people in my area who wished to take advantage of the opportunities available for this body, but, the hurdles which they had to surmount caused some of the applicants to give up. Moreover, I think I am right in saying—and this certainly was the case—that there are no grants involved with this body; in fact, we are talking about loans. That may or may not be a good thing, but I hope that the Minister is not trying to give the impression that these are soft options, that the money is available by the thousands or millions of pounds for former miners who wish to branch out into another form of enterprise.
Perhaps I may also refer to redundancy payments, as the Minister has not done so. I should be the first to admit that the initial redundancy payments offered when pits were being closed were very generous ideed. That fact was most appreciated by the miners. Last year that situation changed. Formerly the redundancy payments came from a generous government fund, but that is not now the situation. The fundamental change came from
538
British Coal itself. That is very relevant. It places a totally different complexion on the matter. From the noble Lords's omission of those matters your Lordships may have gained the impression that redundancy payments are still very generous. That is not the case.
I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that matter. The devastation of mining communities continues. One of the difficulties about the way in which we live our lives is that when something happens again and again we tend to take less notice of it. That does not alter the fact that it is a very serious matter for the people concerned. I hope that the Committee will agree to support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, does not need reminding that British Coal has managed to produce approximately 100 million tonnes of coal over the last five years. There has been an enormous increase in productivity which has led to some jobs being lost by way of voluntary redundancies.
The restructuring of the coal industry has taken place before. In the years between 1974 and 1979 no less than 295 pits were closed, with job losses in excess of 190,000. As I stated at Second Reading to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I am not trying to make political capital. I am asking the noble Lord to recognise that previously the coal mining industry had to be restructured by another administration. I do not make any point on that, it had to be done at a time when another administration was in power. The same kind of restructuring is taking place at the moment in order to bring the costs of producing coal closer to the international price of energy.
British Coal has almost a unique consultation process which is the modified colliery review procedure. I have mentioned the independent review body which is the last step in the modified colliery review procedure. That procedure was agreed with the unions in 1984. It is a matter for British Coal; the Government play no part in the review procedure. The procedure is in place and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
The noble Lord asked me about the current redundancy terms. Very generous new redundancy terms came into effect on 1st January 1990 implemented by British Coal. A lump sum payment will be made of three times a week's pay for every year of service. That is subject to a maximum of £300 for a week's pay and for 30 years' qualifying service. A lump sum of £27,000 would be available as a redundancy term for a maximum for 30 years' service. Those terms are in place. They have served the industry well in the past and I am sure that they will serve it well in the future.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should have thought that a maximum of £27,000 is not a particularly generous payment for somebody who has been working in a pit for 30 years.
The Minister is once again perpetuating the myth relating to the 200 pits that were closed during the

539
time of the Labour Government. What the noble Lord does not state is that at that time the miners were producing so much coal that it could not be sold. That may or may not be a good situation. The pits were producing the coal. There may have been bad marketing on the part of the Coal Board, or there may have been other reasons for that situation. I do not think that the Minister should perpetuate the myth.
I accept the point that productivity has increased since 1985. If one is trying to get coal from seams 18 inches high—I have been in such pits as, I am sure have other Members of the Committee—there will be the kind of difficulty that has been mentioned. Some of the new pits in Leicestershire and the Midlands have four foot seams. Obviously in those circumstances productivity will increase. I am not grumbling about that situation. However, I hope that the Government, the Minister and your Lordships appreciate that productivity does not come about automatically. The Government have instituted procedures, for example the closing of uneconomic pits.
I was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate, but I have read the report several times. The Minister paid tribute to the management for increased productivity and never addressed a word to the miners. I should have thought that that was a matter upon which the management and the miners deserved the utmost congratulation.
Viscount Ullswater: If I did not pay tribute to the miners in my Second Reading speech, that is a matter that I regret. I should have done so and I should now like to put that matter right.
I think that the noble Lord is wrong to state that I am trying to perpetuate an argument which does not have some effect. He suggested that in the period to which he referred the miners were producing too much coal and that it could not be sold. World energy prices have dropped considerably over the past few years and coal cannot be sold at the price which is required in order to make the industry economic. It is only by an increase in productivity so that the coal which is brought to the surface is of sufficient competitive price that the industry can be restructured and go forward.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have no quarrel with the Minister who has, as usual, tried to be helpful. The Minister and my noble friend Lord Dormand have mentioned the crux of the matter. We are not arguing that there does not come a time when a pit must close. We can argue about when one does so and the swiftness with which one does so once the balance sheet slips from the black into the red. We are not arguing against restructuring—the Government's euphemism for closures these days. We are not even arguing about the fact that there have been periods in the history of the British coalfields comparable to the current situation. However, one factor is present now that did not exist before. The Government are going to flog it off. They intend to get out of the business of managing
540
or being responsible for, or to, the coal mining communities. They can wring their hands. They can decide that the British taxpayer or the consumer has to get rid of what the Government quite clearly believe is a burden to the taxpayer. The Government now intend under the Bill to produce the best possible product to sell on the open market.
The amendment is intended to suggest that, with this knowledge, the Government should do what other big businesses do. Businesses have a corporate plan, they know what they will develop and what they will close. I know the retail industry best of all and no big business exists that does not say to its shareholders from time to time, "We intend to seek to develop premises in these 20 large towns", or "in these 50 large towns", as many of them say now. "We intend in the fullness of time to close here, here and here, not least because the people who work for us are affected but also because the communities which they serve are entitled to be told of our intentions".
In the amendment we seek to say to the Government, "Why do you not treat the coal miners and the coal mining communities in the same way as other businesses treat their customers and workers?" That is all we say to them.
I believe that the social responsibilities—I hesitate to use the word "moral" but it is perilously close to that—which the Government have to the coal mining industry and communities could be better discharged than hitherto. All we are trying to do in the amendment is to say to the Minister, "Think again". Perhaps we shall come back to this at a later stage in the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Licensing of coal working, and boring]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("below ground").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 10. The amendments deal with the Government's intention to increase the number of miners who can be employed in a private mine. We wish to use this as an opportunity of debating the issue and persuading the Minister to be helpful not only to the Committee but to those who work in the mines and who are responsible for the safety record of the private mining industry.
The Government are entitled to justify the way in which they seek to make the present mining industry more disparate than it is. Clearly they believe that there are good reasons why private mines can be made more viable if the restriction placed upon them is removed. The Committee should be well aware that the official safety records in private mines are shown in a poor light in comparison with mines managed or controlled by the National Coal Board or British Coal. I am not saying that the record of

541
private mines is appalling and that the gap is so enormous. However, we wish to know why, in the light of the bad comparison, the Government intend to put more miners at risk by increasing the number who can work in private pits.
The record is quite startling. In 1987–88 there were three deaths and 27 major injuries in a workforce of around 4,000 in private pits. That is compared with nine deaths and 780 major injuries in British Coal's workforce of 89,000. One can see from that that pro rata there is a greater chance of a miner being either killed or injured in a private mine than in the mines operated by the coal board.
The question we wish to ask is: what do the Government intend to do? Once they have washed their hands of the coal board, what will they do to ensure that the safety record of the private mines is at least as good as the record of British Coal? The number of miners is important. We understand that there is a Bill—not only the Act nationalising the mines—and other pieces of legislation which govern what happens in the private mines.
Our intention is to seek to ensure that in future the private mines are at least as safe as the British Coal mines. We should like the Minister to spell out why it is necessary in 1990–91 to increase the number of miners put at risk in private mines. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The effect of the first two amendments—Amendments Nos. 6 and 7—is to reduce the limit on licensed mine operations. The present limit of 30 men would apply to total manpower at the mine, which includes surface workers and management staff, not simply the manpower employed to work underground as at present. We cannot accept this. I explained in the Second Reading debate why the Government felt that an increase in the licence limits was desirable in terms of increasing the output of specialist coals, enhancing competition and creating jobs in depressed mining areas. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, did not attempt to address the position on jobs.
I now wish to address the issue of safety head on. We believe that an increase in the maximun number of men allowed to work underground in licensed mines is essential to the development of modern, mechanised and safe operations in the licensed sector. It is therefore disappointing that noble Lords opposite wish to perpetuate the working conditions of over 40 years ago. That is precisely what the amendment will do.
The limit of 30 was set in 1946 and reflected the operating conditions and mining economics of the day. Those were the pre-mechanisation days of hand filling of tubs rather than conveyors. Accident rates in British coal mines were much higher than they are today and very much on a par with the rates that we have seen in licensed mines in recent years. In 1950, there were 476 fatalities in British coal mines out of a total of 688,000 men on the books. That represents one death for every 1,450 men. In the current financial year, the private mines employ around 1,700 men and there has been one fatality. Mechanisation has reduced the fatality rate in British
542
coal mines to one for approximately every 4,000 employees. I find it hard to see the logic of the noble Lord's argument. If he feels that the very small mines are intrinsically unsafe—which I think is what he suggested—I should have thought that he would have argued for their complete elimination.
However, that is not the position. The position is simply to wish to condemn the private sector mine worker to the working methods and safety levels of the 1940s. We, on the other hand, believe that the most effective way of making mines safer for underground workers is through mechanisation. That is not simply the Government's view: it is the view of British Coal's own technical director who has been quite emphatic that the way in which British Coal reduced its accident rates was by the application of mining engineering technology. I am in no doubt that the out-of-date working practices that licensed mines are currently forced to use because of their size prevent the improving of safety standards.
Reports of the Mines Inspectorate on accidents in the licensed sector suggest that many of the fatal accidents recorded would not have happened had modern mechanised roof support and conveyer systems been employed. The investment required for that—that process does not necessarily require the most expensive modern technology—can only be generated by mines that are larger than the existing ones. Those mines need to increase productivity by multi-shifting or working two faces. That means more men are needed and more mining jobs would be provided. Those jobs would be provided in the areas of the country where they are needed.
I shall now turn to the other amendment in this group, Amendment No. 10. I am not sure whether the noble Lord wishes to address it. The noble Lord nods his head so I shall continue. The amendment seeks to require British Coal only to license mines where the manager had appointed one or more persons to direct at the pit head the lowering and raising of workers and had caused a register to be kept of those going down and coming up. That is the effect of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, Section (2)(1). I must tell the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary. All coal mines, whatever the size of their workforce, have to comply with the requirements of the 1908 Act. The mine manager is required to ensure that the lowering and raising of workers in and out of mines is properly supervised and that a register of such movements is maintained. Compliance with Section 2 of the 1908 Act is monitored by the Health and Safety Executive Mines Inspectorate. In the event of a contravention, the mine owner, the mine manager and any undermanager would each be guilty of an offence. Having dealt with those amendments, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
5 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister has properly drawn attention to the significant reduction in the number of fatalities in mines and we all say hurrah to that. That has been a most significant

543
development over the years. However, I suggest to the Minister that that reduction has been brought about through a number of causes which we need not go into. However, I should say that one of the most important committees at a pit is the safety committee. Miners have become conscious over the years of how necessary it is to take the kind of precautions which are laid down in the measures which the Minister has just enunciated. Therefore I find it difficult to understand some of the Minister's remarks. He made certain remarks on two occasions on Second Reading and he has repeated them again today. On Second Reading he said that:
"the increase in the number of those involved in deep mining will allow the introduction of new and modernised equipment which will go a long way to helping in that regard".—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1061.]
I find that difficult to understand. The Minister's remarks from the Dispatch Box just now have not convinced me on that issue. The Minister should have mentioned injuries as they are, if not as serious as fatalities, still very serious. Serious injuries are caused in a pit by machinery. We hear in the mining areas of some horrific accidents such as miners having their limbs torn off or being crushed. That kind of thing can be brought about as a direct result of machinery being introduced. I am obviously not against the introduction of machinery, but I am saying that the reason which the Minister has given on at least three occasions is that the introduction of machinery ipso facto will lead to a reduction in fatalities and injuries. I find that impossible to accept. I hope the Minister can satisfy me further on that point.
Lord Tryon: I have not intervened before on this Bill and I was not able to be present for the whole of the Second Reading, but I intervene now because I was at one time what one could call a private miner. I was a director of a company that had four small private licensed mines of the type we are now discussing. That was about 10 years ago. I am no longer a director of that company so I produce that information as a qualification rather than as a declaration of interest.
During the two or three years that I was involved in the private mining business I learnt several things about it. First, I discovered the absolutely splendid Qualities of the men who worked in the private mining field. They worked in conditions of incredible squalor and difficulty. They had to work difficult little seams. Nevertheless, their hearts were really in their jobs. They seemed to enjoy tremendously working for private mining companies. They were nearly all ex-Coal Board employees but they had made their lives in private mining.
However, as the owner of the mines, as it were, I soon learnt that private mining was an extremely difficult way of making money. It was a real struggle to break even, even on quite a good seam, because it was extremely hard to justify spending money on capital equipment. The mines therefore ran on with their strict limitations on numbers of people. One simply could not expand them as one could not
544
justify spending the money. The mines went on and on in their primitive way with the hand-loading of tubs. One of the mines even had pit ponies. That was 10 years ago, but I suspect that pit ponies are still used in that mine. Therefore, I support what the Minister has said. If the opportunity is given to expand some of those mines to a bigger size and to have 150 men underground rather than 30 the justification to spend more capital would exist. That certainly to me would mean safer working.
Viscount Ullswater: It is always useful to have in the Chamber someone who has direct experience of the matters that we are discussing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tryon for his experiences which he has recounted today. To some extent he used the words which I should have used or which I sought to use. He illustrated that with the constraint on the number of men being allowed to work underground the revenue is not available to invest in the capital machinery that I am talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, suggested that injuries can be caused by machinery. If one investigates the injuries in private mines that are caused by machinery—most of those are caused by machinery and not necessarily from roof collapses—one finds that it is the outdated machinery that is causing the problem. The Government are convinced that by allowing the number of men to increase from 30 to 150 capital investment will be put into these small mines. I accept that that will not be the case as regards all small mines. There are still some small mines which only employ half a dozen people. I am sure that those mines will continue in that way as those companies will probably wish to continue mining, whatever the circumstances. I pay great tribute to those miners as theirs is an unenviable job. However, that is the job they seek and they seem to enjoy it. However, I suggest that the amendment that we put forward to the original Act is sensible and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. I acknowledge the experience that the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, brings to this debate. That is of course valuable, as is the experience of my noble friend Lord Dormand. However, our great concern quite frankly is the safety of the men. We are not trying to make an ideological point. We simply believe that the record and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, show that very often it is not a case of the mine owner not wanting to provide better safety but of owners having to make judgments in the context of their balance sheets as regards replacing bits of machinery. If those matters affect the balance sheet, I fear that in those instances the lot of the miner is put at risk.
We are also concerned about the changes which affect safety. I am told that in future a colliery deputy will no longer be required to hold a first aid certificate. My noble friend Lord Dormand, who speaks with authority on such matters, said quite rightly that safety is crucial to the peace of mind not only of the miners but also of their wives and families.

545
There are a number of other issues. For example, I am told that British Coal has reduced the number of training centres and is cutting back on off-the-job training. That is sad. British industry in general stands condemned for failing to do its job in training future generations of managers and workers. We should be pressing for greater safety measures rather than their being, as I fear, diminished.
The Minister has done what he can. I shall consider what he said and I may return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My noble friend raised a matter which I had intended to mention myself, namely the fact that deputies will not now be required to hold a first aid certificate. That is an amazing suggestion. Deputies are very proud of their certificates, which they acquire as part of their overall training. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why that is being withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: The situation is not quite as the noble Lord suggested. The Health and Safety Executive recently put forward proposals to the Health and Safety Commission which, if implemented in their present form, would include a requirement for a higher ratio of first aiders to persons employed below ground than is currently required. However, the proposals would not require a deputy to hold a first aid certificate. The commission is currently considering those proposals. It is not a fait accompli.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has tried to be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("250,000") and insert ("30,000").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 9. The Government propose to increase the maximum permitted production for private licensed opencast mines. We had a canter over the course at Second Reading.
In many areas opencast mining is visually offensive. Despite the best endeavours of the Government, the Coal Board, the law, and local authorities, opencast coal mining is turning out to be an environmental disaster. We see no case for production being increased as proposed.
We are very concerned at the attitude of British Coal. In granting licences for workings exceeding the permitted totals British Coal has acted against the law. Not long ago British Coal announced that in considering applications for private licences it would no longer obey the law and would countenance workings of up to 30,000 tonnes, despite the fact that the law specifies 25,000 tonnes. That smacks very much of the attitude towards Sunday trading. You bring the law into disrepute and then argue that
546
because the law has been brought into disrepute it ought to be changed. The law is the law until it is changed. To their credit, the Government are at least seeking to change the law by the proper means. We disagree with their proposal. It is extraordinary that a government agency should announce that it intends to flout the law. I should like to hear the Minister say a few words on that subject when he replies.
I rest my case on the outcome of the Flowers Commission on Energy and the Environment which came down against the deleterious impact of opencast coal mining. The commission stated:
"We strongly recommend that as older, more unprofitable and less environmentally acceptable deep mines are closed and more efficient and profitable operations take their place, the volume of opencast mining should be allowed to decline. In the meantime, there should be no increase in the present target of 15 million tonnes per year."
I understand that the figure is now 18 million tonnes.
"The uniquely sensitive character of the British countryside and the high population density in much of the country would not be able to accommodate, without unwarrantable damage, a target in excess of that level".
A great deal can be said about the impact of opencast mining. I am indebted to Mr. David Gosling of R & A Young Mining Limited, Prospect House, Leadgate, County Durham—a place that I know very well indeed—for a letter, which I received only today. Mr. Gosling comments on the evidence of the County Planning Officers' Society that I read into the Second Reading debate concerning some of the ways in which the law has been flouted. He tells me that he was a county planning officer and that a great deal of what was said in the name of county planning officers was not strictly correct. In some cases the damage that was held to be clue to opencast mining was due to other causes. The letter is far too detailed to go into in this debate.
I ask the Minister to justify the proposed increases because the communities affected—not only those who live near the sites but also those who suffer from the dirt, dust and disease caused by opencast coal mining—would not wish to see such an extension. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment would have the effect of restricting the increase in tonnage limit to 5,000 tonnes, making a new limit of 30,000 tonnes.
The figure of 250,000 tonnes proposed in the Bill was chosen very carefully to meet certain objectives. First, there is general agreement in the mining industry that there have been huge developments in mining equipment and techniques since the existing limits were originally set. However, it is simply not economic to deploy efficient, modern equipment on the smaller sites specified by the existing limits. A significant increase was therefore needed to enable licensed sites to be worked more cost effectively. Furthermore, the existing limit often meant that deposits were worked in a piecemeal fashion over an extended period of time, thereby prolonging the disruption to the local community.
The increase proposed by the Bill will reduce the number of deposits worked in that way and for that reason has been welcomed by the representative

547
bodies of the local authorities. Larger sites will also provide greater operating flexibility which will help the licensees to achieve higher restoration standards.
The second reason for choosing 250,000 tonnes was that it fills a gap in the size of deposits being worked. British Coal rarely works sites smaller than 500,000 tonnes which effectively sterilised a significant number of deposits which could be efficiently worked by the licensed sector. The new limit will mean that a significant number of those deposits will be worked as a single, planned development without affecting British Coal's operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me why British Coal treated the figure of 25,000 tonnes as a figure closer to 30,000 tonnes. There is a difficulty in the wording of the Bill. It refers to a licence which, in the board's opinion, is not likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 25,000 tonnes. It is extremely difficult to envisage, before the coal is mined, whether the figure should be 25,000 tonnes or more. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, expressed concern on Second Reading about what was meant by the phrase
"not likely to exceed, or greatly exceed, 250,000 tonnes". [Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1048–1049.]
That flexibility is needed because one can never be precise about how much coal is available within a site. However, with the larger figures that we allow, I do not expect areas to be licensed which prove to contain very much more than 250,000 tonnes. The same goes for the new 150-man limit on deep mines. Likewise, there is no statutory bar on British Coal awarding an opencast licence in respect of tonnage up to 250,000 tonnes within a larger deposit of coal. However, I would not expect British Coal to issue consecutive licences within the same deposit. I have already referred to piecemealing. I shall repeat that point: I would not expect British Coal to issue consecutive licences within the same deposit. Where a licence for up to 250,000 tonnes in a larger deposit of coal is being considered, I would expect the corporation to have regard to, among other factors, the likelihood and desirability under current mineral planning policy of the deposit being extracted as a whole under a single operation.
There are therefore sound and cogent reasons for the modest but significant increase in the tonnage limit proposed in the Bill. As I have shown, the figure of 250,000 has been carefully chosen to meet several objectives. The amendment will meet none of those objectives and has no rational basis. I have not strayed into the environmental area because we shall debate that later. I have restricted my remarks to the reasons why the Government see an increase in the figure from 25,000 to 250,000 as advisable. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister makes a case regarding a gap that can be filled by the addition. Will he tell us what effect that will have on the current total of opencast mining? What will be the potential effect of the tenfold increase? What has the
548
Government's research indicated is likely to happen? The Minister quite properly reminded the House that the 25,000 tonne limit is not fixed in stone. I realise that one cannot be absolutely precise. However, if one follows the logic of the increase of the Coal Board's tolerance from 25 to 30, one must do likewise with the increase from 250 to 300. The Minister cannot say that the limit is 250,000 because the same arguments might well emerge and be applied in that case.
We shall leave the environmental argument until later. However, the Minister will be aware that to put forward the case in the present context flies in the face of the Flowers Committee which was well aware of the potential although not necessarily the current position of energy mix. If the Government are as green or as environmentally pure as they claim, and even if they can produce economic arguments, surely they do not want to rest their case there. However, we shall return to that point later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
("(c) in paragraph (c) after "tonnes" there shall be inserted "and when undertakings have been made by the operators for the restoration of the land affected by the working of coal or by operations incidental to such working".")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12.
The amendment seeks to lay upon the future licence-holder who will mine opencast coal a duty to place a deposit with the local authority. I do not say that heinous crimes have been committed, but I have read what I have read. From what one might call not a prejudiced but a biased point of view, there are clearly many opencast operators who fail to leave their land in accordance with the conditions that have been laid. We are all familiar with the arrangement whereby one leaves a deposit or a sum of money which is returned when one vacates the chalet or house or when one returns the motor car. One therefore complies with the conditions. If the conditions are not met—it is clear that that happens—it is the taxpayer and others who pay.
The Minister says that the Government believe that the polluter should pay. We say that there might be circumstances in which it is better that the operator pays in advance and gets his money back when he has proved that he has been a good operator, rather than the other way round. Even when land is ostensibly restored, the quality of the environment is inevitably and irreparably damaged. We hope that we shall not make the duty too onerous, but we are talking about people's lives and communities. We say that a bond—I am not talking about a precise sum—which is sufficient to make it worth while for the operator to carry out both his civic and mining duties is reasonable and fair. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, require British Coal to satisfy itself that undertakings have been

549
given by licensed opencast operators to restore the land and to place bonds with the local authority to that effect. Under the new and fuller Mineral Planning Guidelines (MPG 3) published in 1988, the principles of restoration and intended after-use are now required to be settled at the time planning permission is granted. As British Coal will not issue a licence until planning permission is granted, the aim of the first amendment is already fully achieved.
As regards bonds, I am not convinced that it should be only licensees—that is, only the licensed sector—and not British Coal who should place bonds with local authorities, as this amendment would seek to put on the face of the Bill. That seems to be an unreasonable distinction. Moreover, local authorities should have discretion to call for bonds. It should not need to be mandatory. However, I accept that there may be occasions on which bonds are appropriate. I do not suggest that they are not. In those cases, local authorities can already effectively require them as part of the planning process leading up to the granting of planning permission.
I hope that I have been able to indicate to the noble Lord that the amendments that he seeks to move are already taken care of and that perhaps the point that only licensees rather than British Coal should be bound by this provision should be taken into consideration. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister makes a fair point that one wants to be even-handed. To that extent the amendment may very well be defective. However, we are moving into a situation in which neither the coal board nor the private operator will be under the sovereignty of the Government in respect of these matters. It is left very much to the power and determination of the local authorities.
I turn to the next point made by the noble Viscount. The conditions which a local authority lays down are probably pretty standard. I have seen lists of that kind of thing. Having been a member of a planning committee I know that council officers are assiduous in urging that they must have planning permission, but also in making sure that there is restoration of the visual amenity, turning points for cars, and so on. They are very good at doing that. However, we come down to the ability of the local authority to enforce its conditions. I can well imagine some local authorities which are very careful about carrying out their obligations and asking for a bond; I can equally imagine others which are not. I am afraid that the wider community will suffer according to the zealousness and perspicacity of the local authority in these matters.
However, the Minister has done what he can and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted—
"(2B) A licence under subsection (2)(a) above shall not be granted to
(a) any person who, or company which, has been convicted of an offence relating to its colliery activities in the relevant period, or
(b) any company in which the controlling interest is held by a person who, or company which, has been convicted of an offence relating to its colliery activities in the relevant period.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B) above the relevant period shall be defined as five years prior to the date of the application for a licence under subsection (2)(a) above or the date upon which this Act received its Royal Assent, whichever shall be later".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to insert in the Bill a provision in respect of the proven record, in every sense of that term, of those who will operate opencast coal mining. We are concerned in particular about someone who may have been convicted under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 because he or she has been derelict in carrying out his or her obligations. We are concerned that the health and safety of those who work in the mines are not put into the hands of someone whom a court has held to have failed to carry out his obligations.
This amendment concerns any person who has been convicted of an offence relating to colliery activities in the relevant period and then goes on to be more specific. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I fully recognise the importance of the issue that lies behind this amendment. Mine safety is and always must be of paramount importance. I agree entirely that mines must be run only by those who are fitted to run them. However, it would be inappropriate to use the Bill to impose mandatory sanctions for offences which are not directly related to its subject. The safety regulations governing the mining industry are part of the health and safety at work legislation. Also, this amendment does not distinguish sufficiently between serious offences and those of a trivial nature. It would be quite iniquitous if a company were effectively to be put out of business simply because it had committed a relatively minor misdemeanour.
I believe that the most effective and indeed proper way of dealing with the issue is through the licensing process itself rather than through legislation, which is precisely how we deal with the problem in licensing North Sea oil operations where safety is equally vital. The statutes governing those licences do not contain requirements similar to those contained in this amendment but the applicant's safety record is taken into account in the licensing process.
The Secretary of State has given an assurance that he will ask British Coal to take into account any criminal record not just of the mine owner, as the amendment suggests, but also the mine manager in any application for licences or renewals of existing licences. That seems to us to be the right way to proceed and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I intend to withdraw the amendment but I believe that the Minister is far more sanguine than he is entitled to be according to the record. I understand that in October 1988 Mr. Alfred Davies, who is a deputy chief inspector of mines and whose views should be respected, was reported to have said a number of sharp things when the inspectorate met the Federation of Small Mines. Among other things he said:
"Professional standards of management in licensed mines must improve. All too often the reports record very poor mechanical, electrical and mining standards. There is no excuse for these or the fact that managers often do not understand what proper standards should be".
No amount of conditions or licensing permissions will stop someone who either fecklessly or recklessly is intent on abdicating his responsibilities. I believe that the Minister is more sanguine than the situation allows. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of accumulated group deficit.
For the purpose of this Act the "accumulated group deficit" shall include—

(i) sums owned by the Corporation to the Treasury or the Bank of England;

(ii) sums owned by the Corporation to banks and other financial institutions;

(iii) sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage; and

(iv) such additional sums as the Corporation would have been liable for if the recommendations contained in the Report of the Subsidence Compensation Review Committee on the Report and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage had been enacted before 30th March 1990.").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment, which stands on the Marshalled List in the names of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and myself, we return to the question of the definition of the accumulated group deficit. As the noble Viscount will be aware, this is a point that has worried us throughout the passage of this Bill and indeed now at Committee stage.
The new clause that we propose specifies the nature of the accumulated group deficit. If I may take the small Roman figures seriatim, as it were, the paragraphs start off:
"(i) sums owed by the Corporation to the Treasury or the Bank of England".
The Secretary of State, being not a person but an institution, has financed the corporation extensively and we should like to make sure that the accumulated group deficit includes outstanding amounts to the Secretary of State, which in practice is the Consolidated Fund; and indeed if there are any facilities granted by the Bank of England to the corporation of which we have no record in the report and accounts of the corporation we should like to see those accumulated into the deficit. The accounting principles are quite simple. They are in profit and
552
loss terms as written off and put in as a deficit in profit and loss terms.
Secondly, we are worried that there is an obligation in the annual report of the British Coal Corporation for the year ended in 1989 (I do not recollect the month; I could look it up but I am sure that the noble Viscount has it to hand) with regard to bank loans and overdrafts of some £44 million (and £47 million on a consolidated basis) and other creditors not falling due within one year of £808 million. We do not quite know what all that amounts to. However, it seems to us that if the corporation is to be put on a proper financial footing, if it is to be a free-standing, financially solid corporation, those obligations which are no doubt entered into on the basis of some assurance from the Treasury that they will be met should be catered for in the accumulated group deficit.
Paragraph (iii) of the amendment includes,
"sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage".
The Committee will be aware that it is a matter that was raised on Second Reading. We believe that there are potential outstanding claims that the corporation will have to face. It would be absurd if the Government tried to put the corporation on a sensible financial basis without making allowance for these.
In paragraph (iv) we include some arrangement that there should be a provision which would pass through the profit and loss account and therefore become part of the accumulated group deficit which would have been liable were the recommendations of the subsidence compensation review committee to be enacted before the end of March. In other words, if that happens, then clearly there will be an obligation on the corporation which we feel should be met under the terms of the Bill.
I recognise that it is a rather large point. I recognise that the Government may not wish to go as far as we should like to go. However, I emphasise the principle: if the Bill is designed to put the corporation on a proper financial footing, those are the issues which the Government must address. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: As regards sums owed to Government and to banks, the purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to recognise that the corporation's asset base has been severely eroded by the events of recent years and to restore the corporation to a position where the Secretary of State can properly continue to advance loans to meet its day-to-day cash requirements. It is not the intention to eliminate all the corporation's debt; only that part which cannot be adequately remunerated by its activities.
If the Bill had been intended to eliminate all of the corporation's outstanding loans, the Government would have taken steps to provide the corporation with dividend capital. However, the Government believe that it would be quite wrong to do this in advance of fundamental decisions about how the corporation will be privatised.
Clause 1 of the Bill will limit the deficiency grant available to the amount of the corporation's

553
accumulated group deficit at 31st March 1990. This deficit is currently expected to be around £6.5 billion, but there is a substantial margin of error, depending in particular on the extent of the asset write-down—a subject which we addressed earlier at Committee stage. I am confident that the limit on deficiency grant as set out in the Bill will be sufficient for the financial reconstruction to achieve its objective of enabling the Secretary of State to continue to lend to the corporation, without increasing this limit by the amount of the corporation's currently outstanding debt.
I am advised that the noble Lord will be aware that for the Secretary of State to forgive the corporation all or part of its loans would result in a credit to its profit and loss account and so in fact reduce the accumulated group deficit.
As regards the subsidence provisions, the corporation has provided in its accounts for some time (as coal is mined) for its estimated liability to meet the cost of surface damage. The provision included in its accounts to 31st March 1990 will therefore automatically be covered by deficiency grant as currently defined in the Bill.
It is not possible to assess fully the extent of any increase in British Coal's subsidence costs until details of the legislation are finalised. The noble Lord will be aware that further legislation to take account of the Waddilove Report is intended. It will then be for the corporation, in line with the "polluter pays" principle, to make the necessary provisions at that time. The adequacy of the corporation's provisions, including that in respect of its liability to pay compensation for subsidence damage, will be reviewed by the corporation's auditors when reporting on the corporation's annual accounts.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question about the other creditors of the £808 million. I am afraid that I do not have the detailed analysis of this figure but I believe that it relates largely to sums owing to pension schemes under annuity arrangements and to retention moneys in respect of uncompleted contracts, not sums owing to banks.
With that explanation, perhaps the noble Lord may feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I understand that it is not the Government's intention to eliminate the whole financing deficit of the corporation, but the accumulated group deficit; in other words, past losses. I can find all kinds of accounting procedures for ensuring that forgiveness of debt does not appear as a credit on the accumulated group deficit. If the noble Viscount wants my advice, I am happy to give it to him—obviously for a commercial fee! I can certainly find ways and means of doing that.
On the question of subsidence, I accept that it is an issue which is to a certain extent open-ended until the Government introduce legislation to cope with it.
I am not entirely happy with the reply of the noble Viscount. However, in the interests of proceeding with the Committee stage on the Bill, I shall not press the matter further. I shall read what the noble
554
Viscount has said, and may return to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Licensing: conservation requirements.
.—(1) No licence shall be awarded under section 4 of this Act for the working of coal at a mine or by opencast operations unless the Board is satisfied that the proposal for which a licence is sought has been formulated having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna, and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest, and takes steps to mitigate any effect which the proposal would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, buildings or objects.
(2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall also apply, with the necessary modifications, where any proposal is being formulated for the restoration of land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations or by operations incidental to such working.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would extend to the private sector the environmental duty that currently applies to British Coal's opencast operations. First, I should like to comment on the very positive debate that we had at Second Reading when almost every speaker referred to the need for stricter environmental conditions to be imposed on the coal industry. I therefore approach this debate with considerable optimism that the Government will respond positively to the need for a new duty, and will either accept my amendment or bring forward their own at Report stage.
The case for an expanded environmental duty is obvious. British Coal has had an amenity duty on its opencast operations since 1958. This was confirmed in 1986 under the Housing and Planning Act. Now that the Government intend greatly to expand the private sector activity in coal extraction, it is only logical and sensible to ensure that the private sector operates under the same framework as the British Coal Corporation. It means extending BCC's environmental duty to the private sector.
It is quite clear that the Government already hope that this will happen. In 1988 the Department of the Environment issued guidance to mineral planning authorities in its Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3. On page 5, at paragraph 16, it states that it expects that private operators will wish to have regard to similar considerations as those applying to British Coal.
The guidance is welcome, but it is by no means sufficient. Regrettably, the performance of many private operators in this field leaves much to be desired, as I mentioned in referring to the Durham County Council report on Second Reading. A simple hope that of their own free will private operators will embrace a statutory duty that technically applies only to British Coal is not good enough. The purpose of my amendment is to put into legislative effect that which the Government already hope will happen.
My amendment can be broken down into three areas. First, it would apply the environmental duty

555
to the deep-mine and opencast sectors. I expect that my noble friend will tell me that I am breaking with precedent because BCC does not yet have an amenity duty with respect to its deep-mine operations. I am aware of that, but I believe that it is now time for BCC and the private-sector deep mines to have such a duty.
Secondly, my amendment would require private-sector companies to take the environment into account while formulating their proposals. That is vital because the procedures of planning and environmental impact assessment (EIA) do not in practice have much influence until a much later stage in the development of a project.
By that time all the major decisions, especially the favoured site, have been taken. Nothing could be more important than building consideration for the environment into the decision-making process at the earliest stage.
I was heartened when, in response to my amendment tabled last year during the passage of the Electricity Bill, the Minister agreed to accept the fact that similar duties should apply to the Secretary of State, to the Director of Electricity Supply and to the private-sector power generators and distributors. Those duties now appear in Section 3 of and Schedule 9 to the Electricity Act. Therefore, I am optimistic that my noble friend will build on that precedent by accepting my amendment today.
Thirdly, my amendment ensures that steps would be taken to mitigate the adverse impact of the development as an intrinsic part of is formulation. Such impact might be landscape damage; noise; and dust and traffic movements created in any coal extraction site whether deep-mine or opencast. That process would also interact with the planning stages where local authorities can impose conditions on developers to reduce environmental damage and the process of EIA which can identify mitigating measures.
I should like to comment briefly on the planning process and EIA and explain how my proposed new duty will relate to them. My noble friend referred to that point in his response to the Second Reading debate. All coal extraction proposals, whether deep mine or opencast, require planning consent. The normal planning procedure is the same as for any other development. The local planning authority receives the application, considers it and is entitled to give consent, refuse it, or impose conditions on a consent.
Since 1988 the EC environmental impact assessment directive has operated in the United Kingdom. It requires developers of certain projects to submit with their planning application an environmental statement describing the impact of their proposed development on the environment, together with the steps that they have taken to mitigate any environmental damage caused.
Obviously, these processes are of vital importance but we should be aware of their limitations. First, planning authorities are able to consider only the applications that they receive. For example, they cannot state that they believe that a much better site
556
for opencast coal exists 10 miles from the site in question. Neither does EIA, which is a welcome addition to the planning process, apply in every case.
The detailed regulations covering EIA extend only to new large deep mines and opencast sites over 50 hectares. The exception is sensitive areas where smaller sites may require EIA. Fifty hectares is an enormous area of land. For those Members of the Committee who have difficulty thinking in metric measurements, it is an area slightly larger than Green Park and St. James's Park joined together. It is obvious that some applications would not be covered by the need to undertake an EIA.
However, for the purpose of my amendment it is important to note that EIA is implemented only after a site has been chosen and if it falls above the required threshold. My amendment would influence the process at a much earlier stage. For example, my environmental duty should help by identifying the least damaging sites; searching out derelict or unsightly land where coal extraction operations could improve the site; matching coal quality requirements with environmental considerations and the national need for coal with the objective ot minimising overall environmental damage. The experience of EIA in this country is that it is not able to fulfil that function. Therefore, I believe that my amendment is a necessary and important complement to existing planning and EIA procedures.
There appear to be innumerable arguments for accepting the new clause. There are legislative precedents in the Housing and Planning Act and the Electricity Act. The Government are on record as stating that they hope that the private sector will adopt similar duties in Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3, and there is ample evidence showing widespread concern about the damage which coal extraction—especially opencast operations—has on the environment.
It is clear that if private sector activity is to expand as the Government hope, it must do so in ways which cause the least damage to the environment. To date the private sector's performance is not reassuring. It is vital that we take steps now to ensure that the private sector plays its part in making sure that necessary industrial activity in our countryside results in the least possible harm. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: I support the amendment. I wish to deal with the problems already caused to local authorities which I raised on Second Reading. There are problems for local authorities where sites are not properly regulated and restored and where the environment is damaged.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, provides a strict environmental framework for the licensing of coal extraction. As he has said, in laying down the environmental duty to take account of the environmental impact of any scheme during the formulation of proposals as well as during the planning and assessment stages it follows implicitly the precedent of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1990. Unless the operations are guided from the outset by improved

557
environmental responsibilities, the environmental damage could be greater than need be the case.
On Second Reading I referred to the concern felt by local authorities as a result of the proposal that the corporation can grant licences for opencast operations where the total production figure is not likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 250,000 tonnes. That is a 10-fold increase on the present limit of 25,000 tonnes. Yet, despite that huge increase, there is no requirement in the Bill for the licensed sector of the industry to have specific regard for environmental considerations, unlike British Coal.
Opencast coal mining can have significant environmental implications even where the operator takes all possible care to minimise the effects in the locality during the operation and to restore the land afterwards. It is imperative that private operators should be under no less an obligation than British Coal to minimise the environmental effect of their operations.
Since I spoke on Second Reading, I have received a great deal of correspondence concerning different local authorities and the problems that they have faced. I shall not bore the Committee with all the details but I wish to refer to some of the smaller licensed-operator sites. I refer in particular to Cinderhill, a site of 20 or 30 acres near Kilburn in central Derbyshire. After a period of several years during which it had not been worked, the operators put oil waste on the site in lagoons. That turned out to be most unsatisfactory. The site had been laid waste for about 15 years and although subject to enforcement action, that has still not been satisfactorily restored at all. In the end, the local authority will have to pick up the tab for making that land suitable for recreational and other needs.
There is another site at Hilton Moor, a licensed opencast site in Durham, which is about 19 hectares. Permission was given by the Secretary of State for the Environment in February 1986 following a public inquiry. That permission was subject to conditions requiring a cessation of extraction no later than 21 months after the work had begun and the restoration of the site in accordance with the scheme which was agreed by the county council. In January 1988 work ceased. The county council was advised that the site operator was no longer in possession of that site, it having been taken into receivership. As a result, the site has remained unrestored in breach of the planning condition with all the implications for the environment in that particular area. The county council took enforcement action towards the end of 1988 but the area has still not been satisfactorily restored.
A further example is the Hill Top opencast site in East Stanley in Durham. There permission was also given following a successful appeal by the developer and subject to conditions which included restoration of the site. The development of the site started in 1981 and was expected to be completed in some three or four years. However, by July 1986 the development had still not been completed and the site remains only partially restored. Enforcement action was taken in the summer of 1986 and although the site has now been restored there was a period of
558
18 months when the site, which is very close to houses with a lot of young children, remained an environmental eyesore and a real hazard to the children in the area. It was only after very lengthy and complex enforcement proceedings that the site was eventually restored.
Those are some unsatisfactory examples which we find in the privately licensed opencast sites. I also have compehensive details of a site near Consett in County Durham. It would take me too long to give the Committee the history of that matter. The county council made efforts to get proper reinstatement and faced many problems regarding enforcement notices. Work on the site ended in 1986 and the restoration is still not complete.
I accept that with the greater tonnage proposed, some of the larger operators who at present work on a contract site for British Coal will probably be interested in applying for the larger sites. Because they have been used to meeting British Coal's standards, they will probably achieve a higher environmental standard. However, I still believe that that duty should be written into the Bill to cover all licensed operators.
6 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: From these Benches, we strongly support this amendment. I shall not waste the time of the Committee by repeating examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because quite clearly she has far greater knowledge of the matter than I.
Lord Renton: There is one technical point which I should mention. At the end of the second line of the amendment the word "Board" should be replaced by the word "Corporation". That is a very small point which can easily be dealt with by a manuscript amendment if the new clause is acceptable to the Committee. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee and especially to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Let us concede at once—and it is evidence that what is best is possible—that in some cases there have been wonderful restorations of land following opencast coal mining. However, there have been too many exceptions, as has been stated. Here we are faced with the fact that on the wording of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Norrie pointed out, no area which is smaller than St. James' Park will be affected by the supposedly stringent provisions which would guarantee restoration after opencast mining.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater said on Second Reading:
"We want to see opencasting, which is 30 per cent, cheaper than deep-mined coal, contributing more to our national economy, always consistent with each individual site being acceptable environmentally".
He went on to say:
"That must be demonstrated rigorously through the planning system". [Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1059.]
I suggest that it is not enough to leave it to the planning system. That is leaving too much to chance—is it not?—because the attitudes of planning authorities vary from place to place and

559
indeed, in my experience, within the same planning authority from time to time.
We are then presented with the possibility that things will get even better with environmental impact assessments being undertaken in future before new licences are granted. Of course, an environmental impact assessment is splendid. However, we must assure ourselves that the new licences, whatever conditions they contain, would be effectively enforced. Enforcement is the crux of this matter. Sometimes it is effective; but—alas!—in some notorious cases it is not effective.
The real issue for the Committee, and especially for my noble friend, is whether, in order to gain better enforcement, Parliament should make its will clear. Parliament should show its concern for the safeguarding of the environment in the way described in the new clause or in an equally effective way, however, drafted. This new clause is a valiant attempt by noble friend Lord Norrie to express what I am sure all Members of the Committee have in mind. It would place upon not only the licensee but also on the corporation the responsibility of seeing that the proposal has been formulated with regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and so on. Those words in the new clause are to be found in the Electricity Act 1957 and are repeated in only slightly different form in the Electricity Act 1989. I suggest that what is good for electricity should also be good for coal.
One could go on and emphasise this still further. I hope however that I have said enough to show that what my noble friend proposed with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—and we hope for support elsewhere in the Chamber—will alert the Government to the need for strengthening the law and making clear the will of Parliament.
Baroness David: My name is to this amendment and I should like to add my support to the case which has been so ably made by the other four speakers. There is support all around the Chamber and I will not understand if the Government do not support the amendment also. I hoped that the noble Viscount would already have jumped to his feet and said "We agree with this" because there are precedents. There is the amenity duty which was put into Schedule 8 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986. Precedents have also been set in the Electricity Act 1989.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not enough to leave it to planning. We must have this covered by legislation to ensure that the environment is properly looked after, bearing in mind what could happen under this Bill. I therefore strongly support Lord Nome's amendment.
Lord Forester: I have listened with great interest to this debate and read the amendment very carefully. I am the first to agree that stringent environmental safeguards are a must and to that extent I agree with my noble friend Lord Norrie. However, surely the responsibility for safeguarding the environment rests with the Secretary of State for the Environment
560
through the town and country planning legislation. As we have heard, planning permission is required for all mining. Those regulations have recently been tightened up and the environmental impact assessments, of which we have heard a certain amount, have been brought in. However, they are extremely new.
I have had two experiences with environmental impact assessments and they are extremely detailed. I venture to suggest that everybody is not fully aware of them. They involve groups of almost all environments and very wide consultations. They cover the majority of points in the amendment. I simply feel that this is a planning matter and should be dealt with as a planning matter.
Foolishly, when the planning guidelines were drawn up, areas less than 50 hectares were not automatically included; without doubt they should be included, virtually down to zero. That was an error, but surely it is a planning matter. If we are to listen to my noble friend Lord Renton and if we are to handle the whole thing through the Coal Board, will we not need planning for those applications in the future? I feel that we want one process and one process only. If all these things are dealt with under planning law, surely once they have been dealt with it will be sufficient; we shall not need to go through all the grounds again. I suggest that this is a planning matter and as such I must vote against it.
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say—I am grateful to him for giving way—that under present law it is already a planning matter. It is also the responsibility of the British Coal Corporation. Both those considerations will remain, but the purpose of the new clause is to to show both the planning authorities and the corporation that Parliament really does expect enforcement.
Lord Forester: I feel that we should strengthen the planning laws. That is what I am saying. I am the first to agree that we want controls, but it is surely a matter for the Department of the Environment and planners to handle. Yes, I agree that there are items which must be put right.
The Earl of Erroll: If I may say so very quickly, I have very little faith in the planning laws. I live on the edge of an AONB and we have been trying to resist a scrap heap, a large commercial scrap yard, opening up there. We have been told that we are not allowed to resist it on the grounds that it is an eyesore for the community or the countryside; we can only resist it on the grounds of traffic and that it might be dangerous to traffic. I do not see the point of AONBs and SSSIs as ordinary local people do not appear to be able to bring them to the attention of the planning authorities and thereby resist developments. They are taken to appeal again and again.
The latest thing is that we are supposed to find £3,500 among a few households to employ a lawyer or we will not be thought to be serious when the case is heard. At a previous meeting we were suddenly told that we were not allowed to say this, that or the

561
other or that people were not allowed to speak. The whole planning process, from the point of view of someone who has seen it from the other side, leaves a hell of a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. It seems to be impossible to resist these large organisations. All that happens is that they go to appeal; they ride roughshod over everyone and find regulations whereby all the points that we are told will be taken into consideration are not taken into consideration. I very much doubt that planning law is strong enough.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Nathan: Perhaps I may support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, relating to the incorporaton of such a provision consistently with the provisions of the Electricity Bill as long ago as 1957, as he mentioned. The current approach to these problems surely is that environmental consideration should be integrated into all activities, particularly into those having significant effect on the environment, of which coal mining is one.
It seems to me that it is the obligation of those concerned in such activities to carry out their environmental obligations, albeit that does not deny that the planning authorities should maintain the powers that they have. I suggest it is the obligation of the electricity authorities under the 1957 Act and the recent Act, and the obligation of the corporation under the present Bill, to take the appropriate steps and not leave the matter entirely within the planning field.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment on environmental responsibilities tabled by my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton, the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Stedman, and, indeed, the other amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Williams of Elvel, which we will be discussing later this evening, are important ones and we have considered them carefully.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the general sentiment that lies behind the amendments. Environmental expectations are rising and mining operations must have regard to this. Some of the arrangements for opencast workings and restoration which took place in the 1970s and 1980s would not be acceptable today. There is no dispute that the environmental standards of mine operators need to be higher today than ever before. The issue is how we achieve the right balance between the need for the coal and the environmental considerations, and how we ensure that the environmental standards are applied in a fair and effective way.
I must emphasise that there is very little difference between the basic objectives of the Government and the views expressed on all sides of the Chamber this evening. The difference is how best these aims of higher environmental standards can be carried forward.
I recognise that Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986 imposed an amenity duty upon British Coal's opencast operations. It was felt by the Government at the time that this duty was superseded by implementation of the
562
recommendations of the commission on energy and the environment that opencast proposals should be brought within the planning system. However, the Government accepted the strong views expressed in this House—I think most notably by Baroness Nicol—that a statutory amenity duty should continue to rest on British Coal as an opencast operator. Indeed, the Government went further. The mineral planning guidelines, published in 1988 and already referred to, (MPG3) drew attention to the amenity duty on British Coal's opencast operations and went on to say:
"it expected that private operators would wish to have regard to similar considerations".
I am aware of the report prepared by the County Planning Officers Society in 1984 which reviewed instances where planning conditions imposed on licensed operations were not being observed. Two of the instances cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would have dated from that time; that is, they were in excess of six years old. This report was based on data from 1981 to 1984 which predated the planning guidance issued to mineral planning authorities in 1984 under Circular 3/84.
Where environmental failures take place it is usually because either the planning consideration is not detailed enough or because the conditions laid down in the planning permission are not adequately enforced. On the planning side, since 1984 the Government have greatly expanded and tightened up the earlier planning guidance offered to mineral planning authorities. The opencast operators tell me—and I believe them—that MPG3 imposes on them a tougher planning regime than anywhere else in the world. Since 1988, as I indicated on Second Reading, the Government have gone further and require applicants for planning permission on opencast sites above 50 hectares to prepare a full environmental impact assessment in support of a planning application which examines all aspects of how the proposed workings will affect the environment. This will be mandatory for virtually all the larger licensed sites allowed under this Bill. The mineral planning authority has discretion to require an EIA in respect of any smaller site where there are likely to be particular environmental sensitivities.
If there are failings I do not believe that they lie in the planning permission or in the planning guidance but in the enforcement of those conditions. That is a matter that is not touched by this amendment; nor indeed is it touched by the amenity duty imposed on the British Coal Opencast Executive under Schedule 8 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986.
The amendment also extends to licensed deep mines. Having taken a helicopter trip over the East Midlands coalfields last week, I accept that deep mining can be just as much an eyesore as opencast operations, not least because of the much greater life of deep-mined operations. However, on fairness grounds I do not believe it to be reasonable to extend to licensed deep mines, which account for only 1 per cent, of total deep-mined output, a statutory requirement which does not apply to the 99 per

563
cent, of deep-mined output produced by British Coal itself.
Moreover, it seems particularly unreasonable because all licensed deep-mined operations have had to obtain planning permission whereas British Coal deep mines which predate July 1948 are covered by a general development order. In any event, I believe that a great deal more consultation would be necessary before any amenity duty were to be imposed on deep mining. That cannot be accomplished within the very tight time-scale available for the passage of this Bill.
I accept, and I believe that British Coal accepts, that the time has come when British Coal's environmental responsibilities right across its activities—not just opencast mining—need to be reviewed and its policy codified. A voluntary but published code of practice rather than legislation seems to be the right way to proceed, given the rapid pace of change in mining technology and techniques. This approach will allow a more detailed code to be formulated and kept up to date. I understand that British Coal will be consulting bodies with an environmental interest and I very much hope that that will lead to a constructive way forward. In the meantime, we will continue to press British Coal to accept environmental liabilities that properly belong to it.
I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that British Coal has recently agreed to accept liability for restoring the sites of deep mines closing over the next four years up to privatisation. This is an appropriate extension of the polluter pays principle and it will cost British Coal around £25 million, with a corresponding reduction in derelict land grant.
The Government believe that a voluntary approach is the most effective way forward. I have indicated one difficulty we have with this amendment—that it imposes on licensed deep mines a duty that does not extend to British Coal's deep mines. However, our basic objection to this amendment is that it puts the obligation on British Coal as licensor to satisfy itself as to whether the licensee has had adequate regard to the environmental implications of his operation. We do not think that is an effective way to secure environmental standards. In fact, it could be counter-productive. We believe a clear distinction has to be drawn between the licensing regime and the planning regime.
British Coal has clear statutory functions as licensor to develop the coal industry in the national interest. The planning system bears the responsibility of environmental protection. This amendment blurs this clear division of responsibilities and in my view weakens the functioning of both the licensing and the planning systems as a result. For example, we have an arrangement at the moment where British Coal has publicly committed itself not to issue a licence unless the licensee has planning permission. If British Coal were required to satisfy itself independently of the planning permission that the licensee's operations were environmentally sound, what would happen if
564
it concluded that planning permission had been unsoundly given or required environmental conditions which were in conflict with the conditions laid down by the mineral planning authority or by the Secretary of State for the Environment? I believe the amendment will tend to produce muddle and delay. The reassurance that the supporters of the amendment are looking for rests, I believe, in British Coal's commitment that it will accept an application for a licence only when an appropriate planning permission has been obtained.
Perhaps I may deal with two questions that were put to me. My noble friend Lord Norrie stressed the need for early consultation on environmental aspects; that is, before an environmental impact assessment. The planning system was tightened in MPG3, as I said, to stress the importance of prior consultations between developer and planning authority. Paragraph 10 also requires consideration of whether it would be better to work an alternative site on environmental grounds. Therefore, I do not fully accept that there is no requirement for the early consultation that my noble friend seeks.
My noble friend Lord Renton suggested that local planning authorities were perhaps in some way not the right people to look after environmental aspects on a nation-wide basis. I have to disagree with my noble friend. It is local conditions that local government should consider before making decisions. Local authorities are probably best placed to take the detailed decisions that are required before giving planning permission.
I have spoken for a number of minutes on this amendment. That is perhaps an indication of how seriously the Government take it. However, I hope that in view of what I have said and the very tight timetable which this Bill requires my noble friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lord Norrie decides, perhaps my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be kind enough to consider two matters. First, there is nothing in the amendment which excludes the planning procedure. I agree that there must be a planning procedure as there has been for quite a long time. The Minister has not dealt with the point raised by my noble friend, which is a very important one; namely, that it is only if an area is as large as St. James's Park or larger that the proposals in Clause 4 of the Bill would bite at all. That cannot be a satisfactory situation.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall deal with the last point first. All mining, whether opencast or deep-mining, requires planning permission and, however large or small the site, that planning permission is under the guidance of the Mineral Planning Authority Guidance, the MPG3, which I have mentioned. As regards the other point which my noble friend Lord Renton raised, I tried to stress in my remarks the fact that the Government consider British Coal, as the licensor, has a different function to play in this whole matter from that of the planning authority. I sought to stress that, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Forester, the planning authority is the right body to give planning permission and that

565
British Coal is the right organisation to give the licence.
Lord Norrie: We have had a very interesting debate. I am still disappointed by the noble Viscount's response, particularly as my amendment has been very widely supported on all sides of the Committee. I am particularly disappointed by the Government's continual reliance on the planning system and the process of parliamentary assessment alone to address the very real environmental concern raised by coal extraction. As I emphasised in my speech, under the present arrangements these come into the process far too late to play the vital role which I envisage for the environmental duty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, also raised some very important points on behalf of the local authorities involved which, after all, deal with these applications day after day. The Government believe that we can rely on the existing planning and EIA procedures and by hoping that the private sector will voluntarily adopt strict environmental responsibilities. Almost every other speaker in this debate shared my concern that these issues are too important to be left to chance, and that we need environmental duties to apply from the very earliest stages of thinking about future coal extraction operations to complement planning and EIA procedures.
The precedents set by the Electricity Act 1989 and the Housing and Planning Act 1986 are ones which we should follow and not ignore. I should say a word about deep mines. I acknowledged in my speech that I was breaking precedent for what I believe were very good reasons. If my amendment were to be accepted by the Committee, I should be happy to discuss with the Government any difficulties that they have with that part of my amendment which could be resolved, if necessary, at Report stage.
I believe that extending the environmental responsibilities of BCC to the private sector is essential if, as this Bill intends, we give a greater role to the private sector in coal extraction. I also believe that this duty would be non-controversial so far as the remaining passage of this Bill: indeed, it might help its progress. The Department of Energy has to convince the public and the rest of the Government that it is taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. It took a great step forward in accepting new environmental duties in connection with last year's Electricity Act. The department should not let its image be tarnished by resisting the same improvements to this Bill.
We are facing an issue of principle here. We have reached an impasse which can only be resolved by asking the Committee to decide on the future of this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before I put the Question I inform the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has notified his wish to move a manuscript amendment.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, a manuscript amendment:
Line 2, change the word "Board" for "Corporation".
The noble Lord said: As regards Amendment No. 15 and the new clause as printed, the word "Board" in the second line should be changed to "Corporation". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Listowel, E.

Blyth, L.

Lockkwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Craigavon, V.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nathan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nicol, B.

Erroll, E.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Renton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blake, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Boardman, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

567

Forester, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Geddes, L.

Nelson, E.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Pender, L.

Hanson, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hayter, L.

Reay, L.

Henley, L.

Rockley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Tranmire, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
6.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is promoted by Associated British Ports, Britain's largest port authority. The preamble to the Bill explains that under the Transport Act 1981 the former British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised undertaking, was privatised and became Associated British Ports, known collectively as ABP for short, whose holding company, Associated British Ports Holdings, ABPH, was successfully floated on to the stock market in 1983 with many of its employees becoming shareholders. Since 1983 the turnover and profitability of the group, including ABP, have increased significantly. It has achieved the highest growth in share price and market valuation of all the previously state owned enterprises now in the private sector. Investment in the proposed developments sought in this Bill will not involve any recourse to public funds.
While ABP is wholly in the private sector, it must also be remembered that it remains a statutory harbour undertaking, with a duty under Section 9 of the Transport Act 1981 to provide port facilities to such extent as it may think expedient. It is in keeping with Parliament's wishes, as enacted in that Act, that Associated British Ports has promoted the Bill. The Bill seeks to develop and improve facilities at three of its ports; at Immingham on Humberside, at King's Lynn in Norfolk and at Port Talbot in South Wales.
I shall now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Part I is formal and is in well precedented terms. It deals with definitions, and it incorporates, with modifications to suit local conditions, provisions found in Public Acts which are usually applied by
568
Private Acts. Part II seeks to empower ABP compulsorily to acquire land or rights in land for the purpose of constructing the proposed works mentioned in Part III of the Bill. Part III contains one of the most fundamental objectives of the Bill. Associated British Ports wishes to construct port facilities which are needed to cater for larger, and hence more cost-effective vessels, which are becoming more common and for which ABP must make provision if it, and indeed the United Kingdom, are to remain competitive. Because the proposed works are to be constructed in tidal waters, Parliament's consent is needed.
Clause 8 sets out the proposed works. Works Nos. 1,2 and 3 are intended to create a new facility for dry bulk cargo in the River Humber near Immingham. Work No. 1 comprises a jetty and a jetty head; Work No. 2 comprises a secondary jetty designed to give additional access to the jetty head. Work No. 3 consists of a reclamation landwards to the jetty head to provide additional back-up land. The port of Immingham is one of the busiest and most successful in the country, currently handling about 35 million tonnes of traffic annually. This volume of traffic leads to congestion in the enclosed dock system and many of the cargos could be more efficiently handled at the proposed jetty. Without the constraint of lock gates, larger ships could be employed to carry the dry bulk cargo presently handled in the enclosed dock, thus relieving the congestion. It would also result in more space in the enclosed dock for those cargos which can only be handled suitably in such a dock. At the same time, it will mean the provision of considerable bulk facilities in the River Humber for larger vessels. This new facility would also mean that expensive transhipment at continental ports would no longer be necessary, as larger vessels could sail from foreign destinations direct to the new jetty terminal in the Humber.
Work No. 4 consists of a proposed quay intended to provide berths for vessels in the River Great Ouse at King's Lynn. King's Lynn, although small, is a very busy port handling primarily grain and other agricultural exports as well as timber and steel imports. The new berths will enable larger ships to call at the port as at present all the available facilities for cargo handling are located in the enclosed docks and the size of vessel is limited by the entrance lock.
The remaining clauses in this part of the Bill, Clauses 9 to 14, contain matters ancillary to the main works. Clause 9 deals with dredging in the Rivers Humber and Great Ouse. Clauses 10 to 13 in effect bring the proposed works within the undertaking of ABP for such matters as the application of by-laws and the powers of marine officials to give directions aimed at ensuring the safety of shipping. Clause 14 is a standard provision found in APB's Private Acts and incorporates, without the need to set them out in full, provisions which may be summed up as regulating the conduct of APB in carrying out and maintaining the works set out in the Bill.
Clause 15 sets out various definitions relating to Port Talbot and Clause 16 extends the geographical limits of the harbour. Port Talbot tidal harbour is a specialised facility which was constructed to allow

569
the British Steel Corporation to bring in essential raw materials at a suitable deep water harbour, convenienty placed for the steelworks at Margam and Llanwern. The intention is to deepen and lengthen the dredged channel forming the approach to the tidal harbour, so that BSC may use larger vessels. It is planned that, with the improved channel, Port Talbot will be able to handle vessels carrying up to 150,000 tonnes of cargo instead of the present limit of 100,000 tonnes. That will obviously benefit the British Steel Corporation significantly.
Part V of the Bill contains a standard protective provision for the Crown. Part VI contains Clause 18 which places a time limit of 10 years on the deemed planning permissions enjoyed by works authorised by Act of Parliament; and Clause 19 which requires ABP to pay all expenses of the promotion of the Bill and to pay them out of revenue. These clauses are standard provisions.
Having described the contents of the Bill, albeit in a very truncated form, I suggest that it is relevant to give a brief summary of the Bill's progress since it was deposited in Parliament on 27th November 1987. Petitions were deposited against the Bill which sought to defeat it on the grounds that the proposed works at Immingham would enable foreign coal to be imported to the detriment of the coal industry in this country. Not all of those petitions were settled. The Bill was therefore ordered to be examined by a Select Committee in another place. The Bill did not reach that Committee stage until the autumn of 1988.
The Select Committee in another place spent several months in considering the Bill together with another Bill, which was not promoted by ABP, concerning port facilities in the Humber. The result of the committee's deliberations was that the ABP (No. 2) Bill was allowed to proceed without amendment, although the committee asked for and received an undertaking from ABP that once the new facilities at Immingham were in place, ABP would provide another place and the Government with detailed information about steam coal imports.
The Select Committee also produced a special report in which it expressed its concern about the possible impact on the British coal mining industry if there were to be substantial coal imports. However, the committee accepted that this was a matter which would have to be decided by government and Parliament as part of a general energy policy, and that the ABP (No. 2) Bill should not be amended or rejected as a means of protecting the British coal mining industry. The Bill finally achieved its Third Reading in another place on 10th January of this year.
Ten petitions against the Bill have been deposited in your Lordships' House by what I loosely refer to as the "coal lobby", including the British Coal Corporation and the mining unions. In general, those petitions seek to defeat the Bill. ABP's position on these petitions, which are similar to those rejected in another place, is that they are totally unacceptable because they would represent discrimination in favour of a particular group and against the interests of other potential customers. Such discrimination would, in ABP's view, be totally contrary both to
570
the letter and to the spirit of the legislation under which ABP conducts its business as the United Kingdom's largest ports authority.
At this stage perhaps I may say how much I, and I am sure, all Members of the House, look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Rockley which will I am sure, demonstrate the considerable breadth of his knowledge on both investment and trade.
Regarding the case for the Bill, I do not think that I can do better at this stage than to quote from the decisions of the Select Committee of another place:
"The Committee first considered those parts of the Bill which relate to the promoters' ports at King's Lynn and Port Talbot. We noted that none of the petitioners presented any evidence in opposition to these provisions, and that it appears to be generally agreed that the provisions are uncontentious and beneficial.
We therefore unanimously resolved, That so much of the Preamble as relates to the construction of works and the extension of jurisdiction at the promoters' docks at King's Lynn in Norfolk, and to the extension of the limits of the promoters' harbour, and its approaches, at Port Talbot in West Glamorgan, is agreed to".
So far as concerned Immingham, the Select Committee agreed with counsel for the promoters when he said:
"Had it not been for the 'coal issue', the principle of the ABP Bill would almost certainly not have been contested".
The committee went on to find that the request by the promoters to extend the facilities at Immingham was, in itself, a reasonable one. In particular, it would enable Immingham to compete specifically with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. The issue, therefore, is whether Parliament should allow the British coal industry to stop a private enterprise company from investing in the expansion of its business in order to preserve British Coal's monopoly in the supply of coal to the electricity generating industry. I do not believe that it should do so.
Britain needs the best and most efficient ports industry that we can create, so that British exporters and importers can enjoy the most efficient transport of their goods in the interests of the country as a whole. The proposals in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill will benefit Associated British Ports but, more significantly, it will also bring substantial benefits to the United Kingdom as a whole. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may be considered in further detail in Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Geddes.)
6.57 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am completely opposed to the Bill because of the effect it will have on the British coal industry and, as a result, on the national economy. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said allays any of the fears that I have in this respect, although I must pay tribute to the fact that he referred to the Select Committee. He gave one or two quotations from the report and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I put forward, later in my speech, other quotations from the same committee which I think have even greater strength.

571
During its passage through another place, supporters of the Bill said that the measure was not simply concerned with the import of coal. In its literal sense that is probably true. However, there is no doubting the fact that much more coal than any other material will be brought in. Parliament is not a school debating society: it is an institution which has the experience and expertise to know what is likely to happen in any particular situation. Anyone in this debate who disputes that coal imports will increase by vast amounts is politically naive, to put it at its mildest.
Three assessments of the effect of the Bill which I have read estimate that imports of coal through the Humber terminal would be from 10 million tonnes to 11 million tonnes by the mid-1990s. That level of imports would close either 12 or 13 pits with something like 8,000 to 10,000 miners losing their jobs. The North-East coalfield where I have lived for most of my life, would be drastically affected. I am not concerned with what might be referred to as a parochial issue; I am concerned with the whole of our country's coal industry.
The seriously flawed argument used by supporters of the Bill is that if other countries produce coal more efficiently, we should be allowed to take advantage of that fact, as the noble Lord stated. That is probably why our dogma-ridden Prime Minister took the time to vote for the Bill in another place.
The weakness of the argument is that most of the foreign coal which is now imported is produced by cheap labour in Colombia or South Africa, or it is heavily subsidised. Some of it is mixed, for example in Rotterdam and Ghent, and it is impossible to ascertain the source and cost of production. This country should consider the nature of the sources of coal. Do we wish indirectly to support the use of child labour in mines in Colombia, the apartheid system in South Africa and the regime in China which has not regretted in any way the slaughter on Tiananmen Square? Some of us feel very strongly about such matters. It is to the shame of the Government that such matters have not been recognised by them in allowing imports that are sponsored by such régimes.
Such unfair competition must be set against two aspects of the production of British coal. Firstly, there has been a great increase in the efficiency of the industry since 1985. Given similar circumstances, I do not think that there is a more efficient coal industry in the world. Secondly, this improvement has been brought about by a huge loss of jobs, which in turn has devastated scores of mining communities. I speak from direct experience. I remind your Lordships of the multiplier effect in the coal industry, which all economists agree is a factor of two.
If pits continue to close and if imports of the kind that I have mentioned continue to increase—and they will if this and similar Bills go through Parliament—the point will arrive when the exporters of coal to this country will be able to increase prices simply because our own industry will be unable to provide the required amount of coal. That is a real
572
danger. If that is the case, one important factor must be remembered. Once a pit has closed, it cannot be re-opened. It is not like a factory or similar building. Once it is closed, that is the end of it. There is no going back.
I should have thought that the Government's biggest embarrassment among their many present embarrassments is the massive balance of payments deficit of £20 billion. They frequently refer to the ways in which they have made our coal industry so efficient. So why should they add to the balance of payments problem by encouraging an increase in the deficit? The Coal Communities Campaign states that at £39 to £43 per tonne in 1995 the throughtput of ABP's terminal would directly add £400 million to Britain's trade deficit.
Given the efficiency of our coal industry, I believe that there is an overwhelming argument to be taken into consideration when dealing with the issue before us. That is the importance of the security of supply, having regard to the fact that according to the geologists we have 200 to 300 years of coal deposits at the present rate of extraction. There can be few countries which do not envy our luck at having such reserves.
No one on this side of the House is arguing for continuing with a heavily subsidised coal industry to ensure a virtually permanent supply of coal. We are arguing for security of supply at the cheapest price, given the circumstances prevalent in our country.
Over the years miners have made huge sacrifices, not least the loss of 100,000 jobs in the last five years. That is a factor which must be taken into consideration. The miners will play their part in securing the supply of coal to meet the country's needs provided that the competition that they have to face is fair and just. That is an important proviso.
I wonder how much importance promoters of the Bill place on the problems caused by transport of coal from port to destination. Those of your Lordships who have not had the experience of meeting aggrieved people who live in the line of transport may ponder Shakespeare's words, if I am permitted to change them slightly,
"Hell hath not fury like a woman whose house is passed by 50 coal lorries every day".
That experience of mine in another place is seared into my soul.
A great deal of hypocrisy is associated with the Bill, not least the pretence that the Government are neutral on the matter. No Minister has voted against it, although a number of Tory Back-Benchers, very much to their credit, have done so.
The Tory-dominated Private Bill Committee in another place had considerable doubts about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, did not mention that it took the casting vote of the chairman to ensure the progress of the Bill. The words of the committee were clear and unequivocal:
"We agreed that the issues raised before us were sufficiently important that they justified making this special report to the House, to draw the attention of the House and the Government to what we believe would be the potentially disastrous effects of large-scale coal imports".

573
The next sentence is printed in heavy type:
"In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry".
The committee went so far as to say:
"The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government".
The word "national" is used twice in one sentence. It is an indication that the committee believed that a committee of that kind is entirely inappropriate for such a measure.
The Bill may well end up on the statute book. If so, it will be yet one more example of private profit being placed above the need to ensure the national good.
Lord Rockley: My Lords, I am grateful for this first opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House. It is with considerable diffidence that I stand before your Lordships this evening to speak to a Bill which, for all of its unassuming name, has vital connotations for the future economic strength of our country.
I must declare an interest in that I am a director of Kleinwort Benson which has acted as merchant banker to Associated British Ports Holdings since it was first floated on The Stock Exchange. I was personally involved in the initial offering of shares to the somewhat sceptical British public. It has been heartening for me to watch the progress of that company since that time, and hence its ability to invest now in port expansion projects.
I wish to address only one relatively basic point this evening. It is a truism, but nevertheless a truth, that Great Britain has lived by trade. Despite the growth of the great economies of this world in the United States, Germany and Japan, Britain is still a major international trading nation. It is important that we remain so and it is hoped improve. Historically, our exports and imports have been moved by sea. This remains substantially the case today and it will do so even after the Channel Tunnel is completed.
To maintain our position in international trade, we must have really efficient and up-to-date port facilities. A great deal has been done in recent years in this respect, as is witnessed by the successful development and growth of ports such as Felixstowe and Dover. However, they are basically container ports or ferry ports and much of our trade cannot be carried by container. This trade needs the best facilities as well.
In these types of trade, essential raw materials for our manufacturing industry, we are faced with competition from the great European ports: Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam. With the single market in 1992 we can only expect that the competition from that area will increase. By way of example, the publication the Economist last autumn carried an advertisement which appeared to be aimed at the British market. The tenor of that advertisement is encapsulated in the first paragraph of the text:
"Distribute via Rotterdam, it may offer you important savings on your logistical costs compared with shipping directly via the nearest port. It offers you Europe's most sophisticated cargo
574
handling and distribution network and it puts you in control again".
The unfortunate and uncomfortable fact is that in the past British ports have lost out to their continental rivals for much of the trade that is destined for or originates from the UK. Many of our exports have been trans-shipped in continental ports because the UK lacks the very large deep water facilities which are essential to handle the deep draft bulk carriers. For example, the UK accounts for some two-thirds of the business of the largest animal feed handling company in Rotterdam. Ores and fertilisers come into the country via continental ports. Grain exports have to be trans-shipped. Varying circumstances will affect many aspects and quotations of cost, but in the simplest version of a single voyage rate Lloyd's Shipping Economist last month quoted a factor of four to five times as the relative costs of freight charges between a 25,000-tonne vessel and 120,000-tonne vessel. This factor decreased with the increased capacity.
Arithmetically this could produce savings in sea freight of up to £15 a tonne. I should not like to be precise on that figure, but whatever the amount the trend of costs in the ability of larger vessels to discharge directly at UK ports is clear. In order to obtain the full cost savings, however, substantial amounts of money will have to be spent on developing bigger and better ports. That is why I believe that the proposals now brought before your Lordships' House are so important and welcome. The economies of scale are enormous and our industry must be able to compete with its rivals on the best possible terms.
We have heard a certain amount over recent years about the decline of British manufacturing and its relatively lower position in the world—lower than has applied in the past. It is not for me this evening to opine on the extent of the erosion of that competitiveness or its causes. But properly directed investment in the future must be the key. It will be investment not only in the manufacturing industries themselves but investment in the industries that support manufacturing. We have a continuing battle to improve our balance of payments. Our trading efficiency has a major part to play in this battle and it would be foolish not to assume that competition can only increase. Our industry deserves port facilities that can compete with the best.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be the Member of your Lordships' House who is able to offer the House's congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, on a remarkable and extremely well-informed maiden speech. I saw that the noble Lord succeeded his distinguished father some 14 years ago and I reflected what a pity it was that we have had to wait so long to have the benefit of his advice and wisdom. He has chosen to speak on a Private Bill, but I am sure that having heard him all of your Lordships will recognise that he spoke with immense authority. As another Member who will wish to support the Second Reading of the Bill, I found the arguments that the noble Lord advanced extremely convincing. I shall go so far as

575
to say that they will enable me to be somewhat briefer than I would otherwise have been. We look forward to hearing him speak again and hope that we shall not have to wait another 14 years for that.
The main argument against the Bill I find strange. It is not that it is a strange argument, because one is always familiar with the arguments of those who feel threatened and who are looking for protection. But the argument which has been advanced with such force and for so long in another place appears in this Bill—a Bill to promote the improvement of our ports, promoted by a private sector company when it and its predecessors have existed over many years to provide the nation with port facilities. I find that strange however eloquently put. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke with great feeling and experience of the problems of the coal industry but I find that argument out of place in a Bill which is intended to improve the ports.
Some years ago I took part in the proceedings in another place on the Bill to nationalise the iron and steel industry. The Minister then was the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to whom I mentioned this matter earlier today. One of the arguments—and it was a difficult argument to resist—that was adopted by those promoting the nationalisation of the industry was that in private sector hands the industry had simply failed to invest sufficiently to remain competitive. It had become unable to compete with its overseas rivals. One of the areas in which it was accused of having failed to invest was port facilities because, it was said, the importation of iron ore into this country had to be undertaken in such small ships that it was impossible to make steel economically and competitively with that high cost raw material base.
These are arguments from 25 years ago. I well remember that it proved quite impossible to rebut that argument. It was perfectly clear that the iron ore imports into this country were coming in in ships a fraction of the size of those which were going into the ports of our competitors. Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, quoted the figures for a cost differential of shipping as between a 25,000-tonne ship and a 100,000-tonne or 120,000-tonne ship, I listened. I simply heard the echoes of the arguments we heard 25 years ago in relation to the steel industry. This is an argument with which one is very familiar. As an island race depending on trade, we must be able to conduct our imports and exports in the most economic way possible.
That means an ability to accommodate the largest deep water ships. For many years investment in the port industry was inevitably constrained because of the exigencies of public finance. However, that no longer applies. Associated British Ports is in the private sector. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, it has prospered remarkably and is now in a position, from its own resources, to invest substantial sums in improving facilities and improving infrastructure—if I may use that word. How often do we hear accusations from the other side of the House that this country has neglected
576
spending on its infrastructure? Lo! and behold we have a Bill which will produce substantial new investment in some of the most important infrastructure in this country and yet we find that it is opposed by the other side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, shakes his head, but I listened to his speech very carefully and I wrote down many of the things that he said. He gave me the impression that he was opposing the Bill, or at any rate the part of it which related to Immingham. He is opposing the improvement of the infrastructure of that major Humber port. The noble Lord made it abundantly clear that he was opposing that in order to protect the coal industry. A private Bill of this kind should not be concerned with airing that kind of question. As the Select Committee in another place made clear, there is a perfectly sustainable argument about what the balance of home production of coal and of imports should be. I have always argued that that balance should also include reference to exports of coal. We used to be a major coal exporting country and we could be again. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made clear, that is a matter for energy policy.
I find it a strange phenomenon that we are being invited to reject a major part of this infrastructure Bill at the behest of an industry which feels that it is in need of some protection. I have questioned the promoters on this matter, but it is perfectly clear that the importation of coal is most emphatically not the primary purpose of the development of the new deep water port at Immingham.
Some years ago I visited all the Humber ports. I visited Hull, Grimsby and Immingham, and I was impressed with the need for substantial investment if those ports were to compete with ports such as Rotterdam.
Some investment has been made in those ports but much more is needed. It is perfectly clear that those ports will serve a wide variety of purposes regarding both imports and exports. In doing so, they will improve the competitiveness of industry and of our ports. Therefore, it is quite wrong to assume that this measure is aimed at coal imports. However, it would be unrealistic to imagine that there will be no such imports. Nevertheless, those imports will constitute nothing like the volume feared by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as British Coal, faced with the competition that imports might offer, will succeed in reducing its prices to the electricity generators so giving the public, both domestic and industrial consumers, the prospect of cheaper electricity than they might otherwise have obtained. The coal will still be mined. The National Coal Board is now sinking some major new pits which will provide economic coal. That is what should happen. However, to stifle the expansion and improvement of a major port like Immingham in order to prevent that happening is the worst kind of luddism. I hope that your Lordships' House will have none of it.
I end by recounting a personal impression. A year or two ago my wife and I took a trip on a container ship. We travelled from Purfleet to Helsinki. After crossing the North Sea, we visited the Europort at Rotterdam. As we sailed up the estuary and went

577
past mile after mile of the huge and immensely impressive port facilities that Rotterdam now commands, I was struck and somewhat overwhelmed by the feeling that something had been created there which was going to make life difficult and was already making life difficult for us. As the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, said, we must compete with that. Associated British Ports is now prepared to take the major steps and make the major investments to ensure that we have a chance to do that. It cannot be right that goods going to and from this country to the rest of the world should have to cross the North Sea in one ship and be transferred in the case of imports into smaller ships to cross over to this country. That is the practice that this Bill intends to reduce, and it is hoped avoid.
While one can certainly understand and sympathise with the fears of the coal communities who see the prospects of competition looming, I hope your Lordships will feel that the argument has to be for improved infrastructure, competition, cheaper electricity and not for the bolstering up of an established industry which is perfectly capable of competing with the huge sums of investment that have been put into it in recent years. I support the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, speaking as I do between two former distinguished and highly knowledgeable Secretaries of State I shall keep my remarks in favour of the Bill as short as possible. I need not comment on the new facilities sought by the Bill at King's Lynn and Port Talbot which appear to me both logical and beneficial extensions. Nor do I question ABP's need for a deep water bulk facility at Immingham. There is at the moment some evidence of an upturn in shipping. That, coupled with an increasing need for the replacement of ageing tonnage worldwide, could well see a return to the larger kind of bulk ships which have not been quite so in vogue recently. Already we can see that happening in the container business where much larger ships are being ordered.
If we are to compete effectively with the large Continental ports such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp we must have suitable facilities to accommodate the larger vessels. Competition is stiff as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, in his excellent maiden speech. I visited these Continental ports quite recently. It seems to me crazy to have to spend extra money in trans-shipment when those larger ships could be brought to our own ports.
What I am not happy about in the Bill is the attitude of the coal industry. I urge the Select Committee which is to examine the Bill not to be bludgeoned by coal's monopolistic muscle, but to look most carefully at the possible future implications for the whole of our port industry if the principle in dispute were to be allowed to become a precedent. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, our ports have been freed from the shackles of nationalisation and more recently from the dock labour scheme. There is a renewed sense of optimism in our ports. Productivity is increasing all the time
578
and new records are being set. That position at the moment is fairly fragile. We have an unenviable reputation to live down abroad regarding our ports. Action such as that sought by the coal industry in this instance is needed by the port industry like a hole in the head.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a director of Associated British Ports Holdings. Soon after I became a director of that company and soon after the introduction of this Bill—that seems a long time ago now—I paid my first visit to Immingham. At that time I found the existing locked port heavily congested. One of the reasons that influenced the directors in introducing this Bill was the need to get cargo out of that port and into the bulk handling facility where it was more appropriately handled. That left the locked facility for cargo which was more suited for handling there.
Since then we have seen the abolition of the dock labour scheme. It is true that as a consequence the volume of cargo shipped through that facility at Immingham has substantially increased. To that extent the pressure is less than it was. However, the need for a competitive port that can stand against the great continental ports remains. That case has already been put very effectively by those who have spoken in the debate.
The case urged strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington—and I fully understand his reasons for doing so with such feeling—would have been argued more appropriately during the passage of the Bill which was debated in Committee in this House earlier this evening. The noble Lord referred to the comments of the Select Committee that national decisions should be taken by the national government and that these were national decisions and were not decisions which it was appropriate should be taken by a committee on a Private Bill. I agree entirely with that view. A Private Bill is not the appropriate instrument for deciding on the future of the coal industry. That should properly be dealt with by national legislation on the coal industry or other energy industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, also argued on the basis of the balance of payments. Our balance of payments will not be helped by uncompetitive ports. That point was brought out superbly in the eloquent and persuasive maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Rockley. There is very little that I can add to what he said.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, we are being asked by those who oppose the Bill to support the British coal industry in an attempt to bludgeon the British ports industry, and a whole range of other industries, in order to protect its own interests. As we have heard, among the cargoes that will be shipped via Immingham are grain, animal feeds, fertilisers and raw materials for the British steel industry.
There is a certain irony in the fact that we should be debating the Bill in the face of a petition from British Coal. I well remember when I was Secretary of State for Wales the passionate arguments that

579
were put to me by the British Steel Corporation, then chaired by the present chairman of British Coal, for the ability to import cheap coal and raw materials into the largest possible ports. He was absolutely right then and I understand why he argues the case for British Coal now. The British Steel Corporation is a supporter of the Bill, as are many other industries, for the reasons that we have heard.
There is a matter of fundamental principle at stake. Whatever the arguments for the protection of a particular industry, it cannot be right that one industry should be protected by imposing serious handicaps on another industry which provides a basic service to a whole range of other British industries and helps to provide part of the essential infrastructure referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It cannot be right that one industry should thereby handicap a whole string of other British industries in their efforts to be competitive. It is because there is that fundamental question of principle, and because the company of which I am privileged to be a director is determined to have increasingly efficient and competitive ports, that I ask the House to support the Bill.
7.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I say a few words at this stage. I have listened with great interest to the debate. It would be quite wrong for me to express any views about the merits of the Bill. However, perhaps I may remind your Lordships, as I have on many previous occasions, that the Second Reading of a Private Bill, in contrast to that of a Public Bill, does not affirm the principle of the Bill. It merely gives approval for the Bill to go to a Select Committee for consideration both of the details of the Bill and the principle behind it.
Having said that, I should add that it is true that the House has the power to reject a Bill at Second Reading. However, that power has been exercised very seldom and only in the most exceptional circumstances. So far as I am aware the last example was in 1937 when the North Devon Water Bill was rejected. On that occasion the Motion for rejection stood in the name of the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Rockley. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his admirable maiden speech.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, on his maiden speech. I am sure he will not take it amiss if I say that I hope that he will speak on many future occasions on matters on which I agree with him completely.
We have heard the history of the Bill. It was in the other place for two years and three months. Details of its passage were given. However, one very important detail of its passage was omitted; namely, that the Third Reading in another place was given on 30th January by a very small majority of 23. It is no good Members saying that few Members were
580
present. Four hundred and forty-one Members of Parliament took part in that vote, yet it was carried by only 23 votes. That is an indication of the amount of concern about the Bill.
I should like to avoid repeating much of what my noble friend Lord Dormand said in his impressive speech. He mentioned a number of facts which I hope will be taken into consideration. In speaking against the Bill it is not my intention, or that of my noble friend, to vote against the Bill. I hope that the debate will put down markers for the Select Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred. I regard that as the purpose of the debate.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who explained the Bill very clearly, there are no objections to the projects at King's Lynn and Port Talbot. It is unfortunate that ABP linked those projects with what was obviously going to be a controversial development on the Humber at Immingham. Some will argue that that development will provide local employment. However, there is a very substantial argument, which was advanced very clearly by my noble friend Lord Dormand, that it could also lead to the collapse of entire mining communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to modern day Luddism, but the collapse of the coal industry means just that. We know the cost of endeavouring to resuscitate a mining community. I have no personal interest in the matter. I am not a member of the ports authority nor am I sponsored by a miners' union. My closest connection with a mining community is through my daughter who lives in Nottinghamshire. She knows what would happen to mining communities in Nottinghamshire if excessive imports of coal were permitted through Immingham.
Concern has been expressed that the 30 million tonnes of new capacity could be used for coal imports. ABP asserts—we have heard this argued tonight—that the Bill is not concerned with coal imports. It argues that it is up to the electricity and coal industries to work out between themselves whether coal should be imported.
During debates in the other place, reference was made to a statement to the Select Committee on Energy by Mr. Malcolm Edwards, the marketing director of British Coal, who said that the major purpose for the port development was the importation of coal. We know that coal contracts have been negotiated between British Coal and Power Gen, but those are for a period of only three years. In effect, they could be interim arrangements until the new terminal is ready, assuming that the Bill is given approval.
Sir Robert Haslam, chairman of British Coal, agreed with the greater part of the Coalfields Communities' report. That organisation is a body of communities associated with the coal industry. It has inter-party support from parties other than the mineworkers union and the Labour movement. He added that, if British Coal was not allowed to negotiate coal contracts with the CEGB prior to privatisation and was thrown out to rely on market forces, there could be a free-for-all. He made that

581
statement in 1988 when the Bill first started its proceedings in the other place.
Lord Marshall, chairman of the CEGB, told the Select Committee on Energy that 99 per cent, of CEGB coal requirements could be met by British Coal, but that protection for British Coal might be required. It has been argued that protection is wrong. I hope that noble Lords have listened to what my noble friend Lord Dormand said. He was arguing about unfair competition and cheap coal coming in through cheap labour in other countries. We have not heard any arguments about that today from other noble Lords.
Reference was made in the other place to a statement which appeared in 1988 in the Financial Times. It stated:
"Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990 … by 1995 any saving by an all-out import policy in 1990"—
the article was written in 1988—
"would have disappeared and the electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British. There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports".
I listened to the greater part of the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill on 9th February. I heard virtually all the arguments put forward. In his opening speech, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that there would be a coal privatisation Bill in the next Parliament. He went on to say:
"It could not realistically be brought forward in the current Parliament".—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1037.]
We have there a definite statement made in this House that a coal privatisation Bill will be introduced in the next Parliament.
The noble Viscount also paid tribute to the management for the tremendous surge of an increase of over 75 per cent, in productivity since 1985. Management did a good job; but, as my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lord Mason said in the previous debate on the coal industry, men achieved that. It was men who did that. Obviously, management planned and helped the development, but it was men who created that 75 per cent, increase in productivity. Those men are concerned that, unless we look after their interests in the development at Immingham, we shall find the whole mining communities in some areas wiped out. It is no good saying that we should be greatly concerned with the effect at Immingham on our £20 billion balance of payments deficit. This will add to it. I gather from debates in the other place that what was just a few years ago a surplus on our energy imports and exports has reached a deficit, if we take energy as a whole.
An amendment was proposed in the Private Bill Committee in the other place to the effect that no coal should be imported through the new facility. That amendment was opposed by ABP. Unfortunately, the Minister will take the attitude that the Government are neutral. We may not therefore hear the argument as to why ABP opposed the amendment. If it is interested mainly in other commodities and other bulk imports, why did it
582
resist a proposal that there should be no increase in new, additional coal imports through Immingham? If it is prepared to accept the imports through Immingham, irrespective of whether it is unfair competition or of whether it is a case of coal being supplied through cheap labour, ABP has much to answer for.
I am surprised at the references made in some speeches tonight which suggest bludgeoning by British Coal interests. Judging by tonight's speeches, I should have thought that the bludgeoning was coming from the other direction because the only people who have spoken in support of the coal communities have been my noble friend and myself. As we have heard, the chairman of the committee said that he used his casting vote on an amendment to alert the Government if the port was used for heavy coal importation. It was unfortunate that the amendment was carried only on the chairman's casting vote. I should have thought that the whole committee would have thought that measure to be desirable.
We have heard reference to the two conditions laid down by the Commons Private Bill Committee. I must repeat those. The first condition was that the promoters should publicise, by placing information in the Commons Library, the amount of coal imported quarterly through that new development. Obviously, the committee was concerned, otherwise it would not have laid down that condition. The second condition was that the fact should be brought to the Government's attention that, if coal was imported in the massive quantities suggested by the petitioners, it could have a serious adverse effect on the British coal industry.
There must therefore have been some effective contributions put to the Private Bill Committee in the other place to make it lay down that second important condition. The chairman described those conditions as binding. During the Third Reading debate in the other place, it was stressed that the Commons Private Bill Committee had taken an unusual step in drawing attention to its concern about the energy implications in the Bill of possible importation of foreign coal. I am certain that noble Lords who have come from the other place will realise that that is an unusual step for such a committee to take. Yet it thought it was vital that it should make that declaration on that occasion. Whatever else is done about the Bill, those two conditions should be written into the Bill. I hope that the Select Committee will take a long look at that matter.
On Third Reading in the other place the Minister was asked whether the Government had considered the two conditions from the Private Bill Committee. The Minister, Mr. Portillo, replied:
"It is not clear what effect the Bill would have on any aspect of Government policy. My hon. Friend also referred to the special report that he wishes the Government to consider. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will wish to bear it closely in mind".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/90; col. 1007.]
The Minister concluded that the matter was one that the House of Lords would have the opportunity to consider. That is what we want your Lordships to

583
do tonight. We want to emphasise the points to the Select Committee. In a Written Answer of 30th October 1989 Mr. Portillo said:
"It is not for the Government to make a formal response to the special report but for the House to take it into account on Third Reading".
The House nearly took it into account on Third Reading on a very substantial vote. A Government with a majority of over 100 must realise that there is something very important going on when, with 441 Members voting, there is a majority of only 23. If I had been the Minister concerned, I should have wanted to know how it came about that such a small majority was obtained.
It is significant that when one looks at the speeches at Third Reading in the other place, and at the voting lists, one sees that the number of Conservative Members of Parliament from Nottinghamshire and from an area of 50 or so miles radius from Immingham voted against the Third Reading of the Bill. It was not from a Luddite attitude but because they appreciated what it would do to their communities if cheap coal were imported in large quantities.
I hope that the Select Committee to which this Bill will go will not be bludgeoned by the port authorities. I hope that it will listen very carefully to the petitions presented to it and will take into account what has been said in the other place and in our debate tonight. It should bear in mind that we are not arguing against competition. I also know a little about Rotterdam. I go to Holland every Easter and I have seen the great masses of containers. One does not export coal by container; coal is exported and imported by way of the special terminals which the development at Immingham is to undertake.
I hope that the Select Committee will listen very carefully to what has been said and bear in mind the two conditions laid down by the special committee in the other place to see whether possibly they can be worked into the Bill by amendments.
7.52 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all I can do at this stage is to restate very briefly the Government's view on this Bill. But first I wish to add my congratulations to those already given to my noble friend Lord Rockley on his excellent maiden speech.
The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in it. It is the Government's basic policy that Associated British Ports, like other port authorities, should be free to compete on price and service. If Associated British Ports thinks that it can make a commercial success of its proposed new facilities at King's Lynn and South Killingholme, there is no government policy objections to its trying to do so. It is for Associated British Ports to persuade Parliament that the powers that it seeks are justified. The Bill has been scrutinised in detail by an Opposed Bill Committee in another place which allowed the Bill to proceed unamended, subject to a binding undertaking agreed to by the promoters.
584
As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, there are 10 petitioners against the Bill in your Lordships' House and they will have an opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
In the circumstances I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can be allowed to proceed in the usual way to the Select Committee for detailed examination.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate this afternoon and in particular to my noble friend Lord Rockley, who made a quite exceptional maiden speech. I am grateful to him for having chosen the opportunity presented by this Private Bill to make his maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear from him frequently in the House in future. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not do the normal expert job that the Front Bench on either side of this House does when summing up a Bill. It is something outwith my previous knowledge, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not cover all the points that have been raised.
There have been some very interesting points—and, needless to say, ones with which I totally agree—made from this side of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, all concentrating, if I may put it this way, on the principle of objecting to a Private Bill aimed at expanding port facilities. It is objected to in favour of one particular industry and, let us not mince words, for the protection of that industry. I agree most strongly with what has been said by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway; namely, that this is not the right place to voice such an objection. That does not at all mean that such objection or concern is or is not valid. That is not the point under discussion this evening. The point is whether this is the right place in which to voice such an objection. I contend most strongly—I hope that the Select Committee will support this view—that a Private Bill aimed at the expansion of the ports is not the correct place to bring in protection of the coal industry.
If I may say so very briefly at this late hour, specifically the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in what I thought was a very impressive speech—the fact that I did not agree with it is neither here nor there; the speech and its contents I found very interesting to listen to—said (and I hope I wrote down the words correctly):
"Much more coal than any other material will be brought in". Shortly after that statement he said:
"10 million to 11 million tonnes per annum by the mid-1990s".
On that last point, to the best of my knowledge he upped the figure of the National Union of Mineworkers which had quoted some 7 million tonnes by around 30 per cent, to 40 per cent. It is remarkable how these figures grow. However, I return to what I think is the more fundamental point when he said:
"Much more coal than any other material will be brought in".

585
No port operator in the world knows what will be brought in or indeed taken out from the port. His job is to produce the facilities at the port to encourage customers to come in and go out. What is carried into or out of that port is not within his jurisdiction. Naturally, he hopes that more of anything is best because that is what the port is there for.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and the House the projections put out by the Associated British Ports for the year 1993, which at that stage was deemed to be the first full year of operation of the port. At that stage coal imports were forecast to be fractionally under 9 per cent, of total imports and coal exports were forecast to be slightly over 7 per cent, of total exports. So slightly under 9 per cent, of all imports would be coal and slightly over 7 per cent, of all exports would be coal and not,
"Much more coal than any other material".
That is if, indeed, those forecasts are correct. They were submitted to the Select Committee of another place. My noble friend Lord Rockley and other noble Lords spoke of competition from the great Continental European ports. Since the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, quoted from the special report, I also shall quote from it. The Select Committee of another place said:
"we were agreed that Associated British Ports is a reputable company with a proven track-record of operating port facilities. Immingham already has a successful and well-managed port and we consider that in itself the request by the promoters to extend their facilities there was a reasonable one. In particular, this would help the Port of Immingham compete with the continental ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. It would enable much larger ships to berth at Immingham and enable cargoes to be brought there direct instead of having to be broken up at an intermediate stage of their transit".
That leads me to a most interesting argument which I heard from both the noble Lords, Lord Dormand and Lord Underhill, regarding the balance of payments. I had to listen very hard to be sure that I was hearing correctly. It is an argument that could
586
be turned on its head. By creating a larger port, by definition one is encouraging more cargoes into and out of that port directly rather than indirectly. That in itself will reduce costs and encourage British manufacture and, it is to be hoped, British exports.
It is interesting to consider the 1993 forecast figures from ABP. I was doing so just now, if he will forgive me, during the winding up speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. If one compares the 1993 forecast figures with the 1988 figures, imports are forecast to rise 26 per cent, over that period, but exports by 32 per cent. By definition, my experience in the shipping industry is that in this country exports have a significantly higher value than imports. I suggest to your Lordships that that alone would encourage an improvement in the balance of payments position, and not a retrograde step.
However, it is not my task to occupy any more of your Lordships' time. It has been said that we are an island nation; we are indeed. We live by trade, perforce. We must have the facilities at least equal to, if not better than, our competitors in order to survive as a trading nation.
As I said at the start of the debate, the proposals in the Bill will benefit this country enormously. Our ports already fall behind those of our nearest European neighbours in size and, as a consequence, efficiency. Surely we must grasp this opportunity to bring some of them up to standard. In my submission, it is imperative that ABP is given the chance to continue to build on its excellent past and its present conspicuous success. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.

  SALMON: RESEARCH AND MONITORING
  SALMON: RESEARCH AND MONITORING
  WASTE DISPOSAL: NORTH SEA DECLARATION TIMETABLE
  WASTE DISPOSAL: NORTH SEA DECLARATION TIMETABLE
  CENTRAL VETERINARY LABORATORY AND VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE
  CENTRAL VETERINARY LABORATORY AND VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE
  TRUSTS: VESTING OF CAPITAL
  TRUSTS: VESTING OF CAPITAL
  TRUSTS: TAXATION
  TRUSTS: TAXATION
  POST OFFICE: FUND-RAISING SCHEME FOR CHARITY
  POST OFFICE: FUND-RAISING SCHEME FOR CHARITY
  STUDENTS: LOAN SCHEME
  STUDENTS: LOAN SCHEME
  STUDENTS: FAMILY BACKGROUNDS
  STUDENTS: FAMILY BACKGROUNDS
  STUDENT GRANT: COST OF ABOLISHING PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION
  STUDENT GRANT: COST OF ABOLISHING PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION
  GRADUATES: EARNINGS COMPARISON
  GRADUATES: EARNINGS COMPARISON